The Doctrine of the Mass

This evening we are looking at, first of all, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the

Mass. We must take time to carefully examine this doctrine from the dogmatic writings of the

Roman Catholic Church so that we do not react against a straw man, a false presentation, a mere shadow of the real thing.

We need to be careful that we understand what Roman Catholics teach about the Mass. And then, having examined that, we will then look to the

Scriptures and see what the Scriptures teach on the subject of the work of Jesus Christ, how sin is remitted, etc.

Now why would we even take the time to gather here and talk about the Roman Catholic doctrine of the

Mass? A number of us gathered here are former Catholics, I myself am not, but a number of you are.

But we are not Roman Catholics today as we gather to talk about these things, so what should our interest be in this?

Well obviously we feel that the Mass as a doctrine, as a teaching, demonstrates something about the

Gospel that is very important. We believe that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

That's what Paul said in Romans 1 .16. And Paul was also very careful to define what the

Gospel is and to defend what the Gospel was. You may recall the passage in Galatians chapter 1 where Paul, writing to the churches in Galatia, encounters a

Gospel that, by modern standards, looked very very much like what

Paul was preaching. But there were subtle differences. The primary difference was the idea that Jesus Christ, from Paul's perspective, had done all that was necessary for salvation.

That the grace of God could not be merited or earned, but since Jesus Christ had died as the propitiation for sin, he had won salvation for his people, and therefore that salvation could only be given by God, it was sustained by the grace of God, there was nothing a person could do or add to the work of Christ.

But the people in Galatia, they weren't saying that Christ hadn't died for sins. And they weren't saying that you weren't saved by grace.

What they were saying was, well, faith in Christ is the first thing, but then once you've got that position, then you've got to do this, and you've got to do this, and you've got to do this to maintain that position.

And in comparison to much of what is preached in the world today, we would think that's a very tame position.

Just a slight difference, and yet it was so non -slight for Paul that he very clearly said that those who would preach that kind of a gospel were under the curse of God.

And so as Christians, we again have that decision, that is almost a daily decision for us to make.

Are we going to follow the New Testament and its example? Or are we going to, and it's much easier to do this, back off and allow for the gospel to be compromised in little ways from our perspective?

If we follow the New Testament and believe that it is authoritative, then we must indeed do as Paul did, and stand up and say, the gospel presented by the

Roman Catholic Church cannot save. And if we love people, then we will share this message with them.

Now, as I said, to understand this, we must understand what

Roman Catholicism teaches about the Mass, but we can't just dive into that, because the

Mass takes in so many other concepts from Roman Catholicism. We have to talk about some other things first.

What other things? Well, first of all, we have to talk about the nature of sin. We need to talk about sin.

In Roman Catholicism, we have, for example, the teaching of original sin.

The idea of the fall of Adam being imputed to his offspring, to those of us that have come after him.

And this original sin, of course, is dealt with, is washed away, is atoned for in baptism.

But the primary thing we need to recognize in regards to sin is that for the

Christian, quote -unquote, for the Catholic who has been baptized, there are two categories of sin.

There is venial sin, and there is mortal sin. Venial sin and mortal sin.

Now, venial sin is sin that does not destroy what is called sanctifying grace.

When a Catholic is baptized, normally as an infant, of course, they are said to receive sanctifying grace, enter into a standing of grace.

Venial sins are sins that do not destroy sanctifying grace.

They do not result in a loss of the position that is gained by baptism. Now you say, well, what sins are venial sins?

That sort of depends on which priest you talk to in reality. There is a fairly wide variance amongst people as to what they believe is or is not a venial sin.

It is not a sin that, according to Roman Catholicism, is serious enough to destroy the position one has by baptism.

It is not serious enough to condemn a person to hell for eternity. The other kind of sin, however, mortal sin, results in the destruction of the loss of sanctifying grace.

If a person does not confess a mortal sin, if a person does not, before they die, receive absolution for a mortal sin, then they go into eternity not in sanctifying grace and therefore do not have the opportunity of entering into heaven.

One of the main reasons, for example, the concept of extreme unction, the last rites was developed because right before one goes into death, one then can receive absolution for all one's mortal sins so that one can go into eternity without those mortal sins on the soul in a state of sanctifying grace.

Now notice I did not say go into heaven. We'll talk a little bit more about that in just a moment because Roman Catholicism also differentiates between the punishments for sin.

Sin in Roman Catholicism, especially mortal sin for the quote unquote Christian, the baptized

Catholic, has eternal punishment or guilt, frequently those two terms are used interchangeably, and that is forgiven in absolution.

When the priest, for example, when a Catholic goes into confession, the priest when he gives absolution remits the guilt or the eternal punishment of sin.

But that is not all there is to sin because aside from the guilt and eternal punishment of sin, you also have temporal punishments for sin.

What are temporal punishments? Well the concept of temporal punishment is that for everything to be right, for justice to be served, a person receives temporal punishments, sufferings that need to be gone through in proportion to the gravity of the sin they have committed.

Obviously a very horrid sin would have a much more temporal punishment associated with it than would a venial sin or a lesser mortal sin, if you can imagine lesser or greater mortal sins.

When the priest gives absolution for a sin, he does not necessarily give absolution for the temporal punishments, but frequently will instead assign certain satisfactions, certain penances that must be done.

Sometimes if it is something small, it will be a certain number of Hail Marys or praying the rosary or acts of mercy or suffrages or pilgrimages, there are a number of things according to Roman Catholicism that have satisfactory value that can remit the temporal punishment of sin.

Dr. Bart Brewer, the head of Mission to Catholics International, when he was a Roman Catholic priest he always struggled with the idea of telling someone else, go do these things for the remission of the punishments of your sin.

He didn't really feel that was right, and I happen to agree with him, it wasn't right.

So he became known as One Hail Mary Bart, because people would come in and anything they confessed, from the littlest thing to horrid crimes, when it came time for him to assign the penance, he'd say, well, say

One Hail Mary. And the person on the other wall, especially if it was someone who had done something fairly tremendous, but didn't you hear what

I said? And he just couldn't assign that kind of penance, and of course it is left up to the priest as to exactly what kind of a penance is assigned.

But the temporal punishment of sin remains even after confession is made. Now, Ludwig Ott, a

Roman Catholic theologian who wrote a book entitled Dogmatics of Roman Catholic Theology as I recall, said all temporal punishments for sin are not always remitted by God with the guilt of sin and the eternal punishment.

All temporal punishments for sin are not always remitted by God with the guilt of sin and the eternal punishment.

So you can walk out of confession, but there are still stains of sin upon your soul.

The temporal punishments do those sins. Now we have mentioned that penance, such as prayers, suffrages, acts of mercy, are satisfactory for the remission of the temporal punishments of sin.

Ott also said, the sacramental satisfaction as a part of the sacrament of penance, effects and then there is this neat little

Latin term that Roman Catholics like to use, ex opera operato. That means just simply by the function of the sacrament, it works, it doesn't matter what the intention of the priest is or anything else, it works.

The remission of temporal punishments for sins and the curing of the evil inclinations.

So in other words, when the sacrament of penance takes place, you have a forgiveness of sin. The amount of the punishment for sins which is remitted is proportional to the measure of the penance imposed and to the dispositions of the person making satisfaction.

The ex opera operato effect of the sacramental satisfaction also depends on the degree of grace of the penitent.

So in other words, the removal of the punishment of sin is dependent upon other factors.

The disposition of the person, things such as this, as it says here, the degree of grace of the penitent.

And so how much of the temporal punishments are removed, temporal punishments can be removed in confession, but not all of them.

And who's to know exactly how many have been removed? Because how are you to know exactly what the disposition of a person's heart is?

But those works that are done outside of the sacrament are also said to have satisfactory value in remitting the punishment of sin.

That's the first thing to understand, temporal punishments remaining even after confession of sin. The second thing to understand is the concept of merit.

Merit, the concept of merit. In 1343, Pope Clement VI declared in the jubilee bowl, unigentus di filius,

I'm sure that we will all remember that by the end of the evening, that one drop of Christ's blood would be sufficient to save the whole human race, but since he shed his blood copiously, there results a treasury of excess merit that is under the direct control of the

Roman Catholic Church by the power of the keys. As you may recall,

Jesus spoke of the keys, the kingdom of heaven, and the Roman Catholic Church interprets this as being a special authority that is given and passed down through Peter and his successors.

So there's this treasury of merit, this extra merit that is available in Jesus that wasn't needed to save the whole human race.

Extra merit. Then added to that merit, you also have the extra merit of the

Virgin Mary and the saints. For they were better than they needed to be.

They had extra merit. This is technically called supererogation, doing more than you needed to do, doing more good works than were necessary, so they had excess merit, and this is put into this treasury of merit, and the church has control over this treasury of merit.

So the Catholic Church claims to be able to disseminate merit from this treasury to individuals resulting in the satisfaction of temporal punishments for sin.

So what you've got is you've got this big treasury of merit, and the church can take a little bit of merit out, and you have temporal punishments for sin on your soul.

So they take a little bit of that merit out, and they then give that to you, and that satisfies those temporal punishments, and therefore those temporal punishments are atoned for.

This giving of this merit is called an indulgence. An indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment by the use of this treasury of merit.

Now indulgences are effective for the remission or satisfaction of the punishments of the sins of the living, and they are said to be of aid to the poor souls who are in purgatory as well.

Now who are the poor souls? According to Roman Catholicism, no unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of God.

Isn't that what it says in Revelation 21? It does. And so if a person dies with the stains of sin on their soul, that is with temporal punishments, venial sins, things like this, upon their soul, then they must be purified before they can go into heaven.

Those stains of sin must be purged away. And so there is an intermediate state that these poor souls go into.

Only souls that are in a state of sanctifying grace go into purgatory. So only those that have been baptized have entered into a state of sanctifying grace and do not have mortal sins on their souls.

Now I realize some modern Catholics are trying to back away from that a little bit because that seems a little stringent, but the real historical doctrine of the church has been that if you die with mortal sin on your soul, you are lost because you are no longer in sanctifying grace.

But if you are in sanctifying grace, and you are not evil enough to go to hell, but you are not pure enough to go into heaven, you go into purgatory.

There the temporal punishments for your sins are atoned for.

How are they atoned for? They are atoned for by your suffering. Your suffering, you undergo the punishments for sin.

And by undergoing the sufferings for sin, atone for those sins. It is not an application of the merits of Christ in purgatory.

It is personal suffering. Now the Roman Catholic might say, well, but it is by the grace of Christ that such an opportunity could exist.

But what does that mean? It really means nothing. The satisfaction that is made for the temporal punishments of sins in purgatory is made by the sufferings of the individuals in purgatory.

So what if you are a Roman Catholic and one of your relatives has recently passed away?

You don't want them to be in purgatory for a long period of time, do you? Indeed the Church has never said how long anyone is in purgatory.

Our Roman Catholics have the idea it is a long time. And certainly there is reason for believing that.

And so you don't want your relative to be in purgatory, so what do you do? You can have an indulgence applied to that person.

The beginning of the Reformation, beginning back in the 1100s, the papacy would sell indulgences for money.

In fact, it was a major source of income for the Church. If you know anything about the

Reformation, you know that at the time in 1517 when

Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the door at the Castle Church in Wittenberg, those theses were written against the selling of indulgences.

Because people were being told, you buy this indulgence and you buy it for a loved one who has died and immediately they will be released from purgatory.

Temporal punishments for sin remitted by the giving of money. Now the

Church doesn't sell them for money anymore, but indulgences are still real. Indulgences are still available.

Now an indulgence is purchased, not in the sense of money any longer, but obtained for someone who is in purgatory.

The Church used to be very dogmatic in its statements about the effect of that, but for example one

Catholic writer now writes, While we piously believe that the individual's soul will be benefited to some degree, we cannot say with certainty that it will be applied in its entirety to that particular soul.

So you hope that it helps some. You hope that it lessens the period of time that the person will be in purgatory, suffering for the temporal punishments of their sins until they are released and can enter into heavenly bliss.

Now the concepts of sin, merit, indulgences, purgatory is important because one of the main ways that it is said that you can help a loved one in purgatory is through the sacrifice of the

Mass. Having Masses said for that individual. Why is that?

Well we'll find out as we get into the actual doctrine of the Mass. So with those as foundations, let us look at the doctrine of the

Mass in two ways. First of all, we will follow the outline that is provided by the

Council of Trent. The Council of Trent was a major Roman Catholic council that met between 1545 and 1563.

It was a counter -reformation council, that is, it was primarily called because of the outbreak of the

Reformation. Trent defined Roman Catholic theology for the next 400 years.

And while some people believe that the great Vatican II council held in the 1960s changed everything, in reality we'll discover it didn't.

The theology has remained the same. Now I'll be reading excerpts to you from Trent and Vatican II so that you can hear from the actual dogmatic writings of the

Church what the Roman Catholic position is. Why? You need to understand it and many

Roman Catholics do not know the dogmatic presentation of their own

Church. They don't know. They're unaware. They go to Mass and they hear what the priest has to say, but they wouldn't even, many of them, wouldn't even know where to look to find these things for themselves.

So you need to hear these things and understand them. But first, here are some quotations from, not dogmatic works, but theological works of Roman Catholic authors.

Listen to what it said. A Christian who freely neglects for a long time the reception of the blessed

Eucharist is morally unable to preserve himself in the state of grace for any long time.

Another writes, a fully Christian life is unthinkable without participation in the celebration of the

Eucharist. Elsewhere, if there is one mystery of faith around which revolves the whole

Catholic liturgy, it is the Eucharist. And finally,

John O 'Brien in a book called The Faith of Millions, in discussing the role of the

Roman Catholic priest, said the following words. Listen closely. 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 men.

It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors. It is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim.

Indeed, it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which

Christ became incarnate a single time, 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.

Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest, who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vice -gerant of Christ on earth?

He continues the essential ministry of Christ. He teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ.

He pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ. He offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which

Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of Alter Christus, for the priest is, and should be, another

Christ. That's what Alter Christus means, another

Christ. Obviously, then, the sacrifice of the

Mass is very important in Roman Catholic thinking. The Council of Trent emphasized this a little bit when they began by stating,

The Holy Ecumenical and General Council of Trent, for the purpose of setting forth the true and ancient doctrine concerning faith and the sacraments, and of applying a remedy to all the heresies and the other most grievous troubles by which the

Church of God is now miserably disturbed and rented to many in various parts, yet even from the outset has especially desired that it might pull up by the roots the cockles of execrable errors and schisms which the enemy has, in these our troubled times, disseminated regarding the doctrine, use, and worship of the sacred

Eucharist, which our Savior left in his Church as a symbol of that unity and charity with which he wished all

Christians to be mutually bonded and united. Wherefore, this Holy Council stating that sound and genuine doctrine of the venerable and divine sacrament of the

Eucharist, which the Catholic Church, instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ himself and by his apostles, and taught by the

Holy Ghost, who always brings to our mind all truth, had held and will preserve even to the end of the world, forbids all the faithful of Christ to presume henceforth to believe, teach, or preach with regard to the most holy

Eucharist otherwise than is explained and defined in this present decree. Note that the

Council indicates that this teaching has always been that of the Church, which is not true, but that it always would be a part of the

Roman Catholic Church, and that certainly has not changed. Now the first thing that the

Council affirmed was something that is known in their parlance as the real presence.

The real presence. What does this mean? Quote, first of all, the

Holy Council teaches and openly and plainly confesses that after the consecration of bread and wine, our

Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the august sacrament of the

Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things. So the first thing they say is that after the consecration, after the prayer where we are in the priest, elevates the host, if you've ever been in the

Mass, you've seen this happen. After that consecration, the body of Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained under the appearance of the bread and the wine.

He is really there. They went on to say that in regards to Jesus saying, this is my body, to the disciples on the night of the establishment of the

Lord's Supper, he testified in clear and definite words that he gives them his own body and blood.

Yes, that is what they're saying. They're saying that when Jesus breaks the bread and gives the wine at the

Last Supper, that that bread and that wine is his body, have been, as we will discover in a second, the term is transubstantiated, changed into his body and blood, even before the sacrifice of the cross.

He testified in clear and definite words that he gives them his own body and his own blood. Since these words, recorded by the

Holy Evangelists and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, embody that proper and clearest meaning in which they were understood by the

Fathers, it is a most contemptible action on the part of some contentious and wicked men to twist them into fictitious and imaginary tropes by which the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied.

Contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which is the pillar and ground of truth, recognizing with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting this most excellent favor of Christ, has detested as satanical these untruths devised by impious men.

So if you do not believe that Christ is really present in the bread and the wine, then you have just been described as wicked, satanic, impious, etc.

They went on to say, the most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the other sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing, an invisible form of an invisible grace, but there is found in it this excellent and peculiar characteristic, that the other sacraments then first have the power of sanctifying when one uses them, while in the

Eucharist there is the author himself of sanctity before it is used. For the apostles had not yet received the

Eucharist from the hands of the Lord when he himself told them that what he was giving them is his own body.

This has always been the belief of the Church of God that immediately after the consecration, the true body and true blood of our

Lord together with his soul and divinity exist under the form of bread and wine, the body under the form of the bread and the blood under the form of the wine.

Following me so far? They concluded this section. But since Christ our

Redeemer declared that to be truly his own body, which he offered under the form of bread, it has therefore always been a firm belief in the

Church of God that this Holy Council now declares anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread and the substance of the body of Christ our

Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine and the substance of his blood. This change the

Holy Catholic Church properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation. Now, you need to go back into Greek philosophy to understand some of the terminology.

The concept is that anything has a substance and accidents.

Substance and accidents, or sometimes substance and appearance. Bread has the substance of bread and the appearance of bread.

Wine has the substance of wine and the appearance of wine. It looks like wine, it looks like bread, and it also has the substance of bread, it's really bread.

It also has the substance of wine, it's really wine. But following the consecration, according to what we've just read, the accidents or appearance stays the same.

It still looks like bread, it still looks like wine. But the substance is totally different.

The substance of the bread and the wine is gone. It is now the substance of the body and blood of Christ.

So the accidents, the appearance, no longer has a substance in which to adhere. Why isn't there a complete change?

Why doesn't the accidents take place? I don't know. Good question. But the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance, the body and blood of Christ.

This is transubstantiation, a changing of substance. Now, many of the peculiar doctrines revolving around the

Mass come from this notion of transubstantiation. For example, the worship and veneration of the host is derived from this concept.

In fact, the Council of Trent defended the Roman Catholic tradition of worshiping or venerating the host.

Because you see, once the host is raised and is consecrated, if it's not then used in the Mass, if it's not consumed, it remains

God. It remains Jesus. And so if you know anything about Roman Catholic churches, you know that the church normally will have a tabernacle and the consecrated hosts are kept in the tabernacle.

And when the Roman Catholic comes into the church, the reason that they are bowing, genuflecting and crossing themselves is out of honor to the physical presence of God in the church.

Roman Catholics would also, for example, place the consecrated host into a monstrance, frequently in the shape of a sun, that would be carried in procession through the city.

And when that would take place, the people would pass by, were to bow before the physical presence of God in worship.

Trent said, there is therefore no room for doubt that all the faithful of Christ may, in accordance with the custom always received in the

Catholic Church, give to this most holy sacrament in veneration the worship of Latria.

Latria is the highest level of worship, which is due to the true God. The Holy Council declares moreover that the custom that this sublime and venerable sacrament be celebrated with special veneration and solemnity every year on a fixed festival day, and that it be borne reverently and with honor in processions through the streets and public places, was very piously and religiously introduced into the

Church of God. And so God is physically present in the church.

One modern Catholic document that came out after Vatican II said, pastors should ensure that unless there is a grave reason against it, churches in which the blessed sacrament is normally reserved should be open every day for at least some hours at the most suitable times so that the faithful may be easily able to pray before the blessed sacrament.

And Anthony Wilhelm in Christ Among Us said, Christ's presence in the Eucharist and the tabernacle of every

Catholic Church is a way in which God today dwells among his people with special closeness.

This is why our churches are open daily, why people often drop in for a visit to share their joys and sorrows with Christ or just to talk things over.

And so the first thing to understand about the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass is that Christ is said to be physically present there.

Now it was years later, remember the Council of Trent met over nearly a 20 year period of time, it was years later in the 22nd session that the other aspect of the

Mass was addressed. First you have the affirmation of transubstantiation, the real presence of Christ in the sacramental elements.

Then a number of years later in the 22nd session, another decree was promulgated in regards to the subject of the sacrifice of the

Mass. Now you need to understand somewhat about the decrees.

The decrees would normally have a positive teaching section and then at the end, frequently, if it was an important enough thing, there would be a list of canons.

You may have heard the term of canon law. And there are almost little short laws with a punishment attached at the end.

For example, attached to the decree that we just discussed in regards to transubstantiation were some of the following canons.

Canon 1, if anyone denies 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 or figure of force, let him be anathema, under the curse of God.

Canon 2, if anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our

Lord Jesus Christ and denies that wonderful and singular change, the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the

Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

If anyone says in the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of Latria, also outwardly manifested and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, not to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal right and custom of the

Holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.

And Canon 8, if anyone says that Christ receiving the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally, really, let him be anathema.

And so these decrees came with teeth because these canons are attached and people are anathematized for holding any position other than the one that is presented.

So in the first session, in the first discussion of the Mass, in the early part of the

Council of Trent, Christ is really there. And if you don't believe that, you're anathema.

But that wasn't enough. Later on, more is said, almost as if, well that wasn't enough, we need to express this more clearly.

In the 22nd session, two main chapters are promulgated. And here you begin, possibly, to get some of the significance of why there is such an emphasis on the physical presence of Christ in the elements.

Because this section is on the sacrifice of the Mass. Here is what the first chapter said.

Since under the former testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection because of the weakness of the

Levitical priesthood. There was need, God the Father of Mercy so ordaining, that another priest should arise according to the order of Melchizedek, our

Lord Jesus Christ, who might perfect and lead to perfection as many as were to be sanctified.

He therefore, our God and Lord, though he was by his death about to offer himself once upon the altar of the cross to God the

Father, that he might there accomplish an eternal redemption, nevertheless that his priesthood might not come to an end with his death.

At the last supper on the night he was betrayed, that he might leave to his beloved spouse the church a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be re -presented.

The memory thereof remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied the remission of those sins which we daily commit, declaring himself constituted a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, offered up to God the

Father his own body and blood under the form of bread and wine, and under the forms of those same things gave the

Apostles, whom he then made priests of the New Testament, that they might partake, commanding them and their successors in the priesthood by these words to do likewise, do this in commemoration of me, as the

Catholic Church has always understood and taught, for having celebrated the ancient Passover with which the multitude of the children of Israel sacrificed to remember their departure from Egypt, he instituted a new

Passover, namely himself, to be immolated under visible signs by the church, through the priests, in memory of his own passage from this world to the

Father, when by shedding of his blood he redeemed and delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into his kingdom.

That's chapter one. Chapter two is shorter. And inasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, the same

Christ who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the

Holy Council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect that if we, contrite and penitent with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence drawn nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find grace and seasonable aid.

For appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins.

For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.

The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one.

So far is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore according to the tradition of the apostles it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departing

Christ but not yet fully purified. So here is the key element.

Christ is physically present in the elements, in the bread and the wine, and hence this is a sacrifice.

That according to the counsel of Trent is propitiatory. That is, it is able to render satisfaction for, then you notice the list, sins, punishments, satisfactions and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those departing

Christ but not yet fully purified. Remember when we discussed the subject of purgatory at the beginning briefly, we pointed out that the faithful are encouraged that one of the greatest things that can be done for the poor souls in purgatory is the offering of masses, because those masses are a propitiatory sacrifice.

Notice also it is said that the mass is to apply the effects of the cross to the remission of those sins which we daily commit.

The fruit of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is then, as it is said here, best applied through this unbloody sacrifice according to this chapter in the counsel of Trent.

Now we already mentioned that the claim was made earlier and is made again here with clarity.

That on the night that the Lord Jesus was betrayed, when he said, this is my body, this is my blood, this was an offering of a sacrifice.

And since it was an offering of a sacrifice and he told the apostles to do this, the only way the apostles could do this is if they were ordained as priests to do it.

And hence the concept that at this point they are made priests in the New Testament.

Understand that? Is that clear? Now notice that God is said to be appeased by this sacrifice, which differs from the sacrifice of the cross according to Trent only in the manner of the offering, the cross being a bloody sacrifice, the mass an unbloody sacrifice.

Now we will note later that there are actually much more differences, many more differences between the sacrifice of Christ and this sacrifice.

But right now note that the church is admitting there is a difference. Unbloody, bloody.

Aside from this, it is said, it is the same sacrifice. The same sacrifice.

Now, the sacrifice is effective for the living. Though I would submit in a very limited sense, for the effect of the propitiation of sin is limited only to those sins, first of all, that are committed in the past, of course, not future.

And though not expressly said in so many words in the Council of Trent, Ludwig Ott in his book notes, the measurement of the punishments of sins remitted is proportional in the case of the living to the degree of perfection of their disposition.

Did you catch that? The degree or the measurement of the punishments of sins remitted is proportional in the case of the living to the degree of perfection of their disposition.

That is, the number or the amount of the temporal punishment remitted by the person who communicates at the mass, by the person who is attending the mass, is proportional to the perfection of their disposition.

That is, the degree of forgiveness is dependent upon the intention and disposition of the person to whom the benefits of the mass are applied.

If a person is not perfectly contrite in heart, then the effect of the mass is less than it might be otherwise. What one basically has is a teaching that says that the sacrifice at the mass, though supposedly a renewal or representation of the sacrifice at the cross, is limited in its effect by the disposition of human beings.

Ott also wrote, as a propitiatory and impetratory sacrifice, the sacrifice at the mass possesses a finite external value.

Since the operations of propitiation and impetration refer to human beings, who as creatures can receive a finite act only.

This explains the practice of the church of offering the holy sacrifice at the mass frequently for the same intention.

Now, as the previous decree from Trent had, this decree has canons affixed.

At the end, Canon 1. If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that by those words, do this for commemoration of me,

Christ did not institute the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his own body and blood, let him be anathema.

Canon 3. If anyone says that the sacrifice at the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory one, or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.

Canon 4. If anyone says that by the sacrifice at the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ, consummated on the cross, or that the former derogates from the latter, let him be anathema.

That is my main point. Hence, obviously, I am anathematized by the Council of Trent.

Canon 5. If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints, and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the

Church intends, let him be anathema. Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema.

Now, following these statements as a section on things to be observed and avoided in the celebration of the mass, one section there is important to note, as we close out looking at what

Trent said about the mass. And since we must confess that no other work can be performed by the faithful that is so holy and divine as this awe -inspiring mystery, wherein that life -giving victim by which we are reconciled in the

Father is daily immolated on the altar by priests, it is also sufficiently clear that all effort and attention must be directed to the end that it be performed with the greatest possible interior cleanness and purity of heart, and exterior evidence of devotion and piety.

Okay? So, let's sum up what Trent said about the mass. Number one, this is what you need to remember.

According to Trent, Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the sacrament of the

Eucharist following the words of consecration. Number two, transubstantiation involves the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ, and the change of the whole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ.

Number three, since Christ is said to be really present in the Eucharist, the elements themselves, following consecration, are worthy of worship, of Latria.

Number four, the sacrifice of the mass is properly called propitiatory, and in that it brings about the pardon of sin.

Number five, in the institution of the mass, the Lord's Supper, Christ offered his own body and blood to the

Father in the signs of the bread and wine, and in so doing, ordained the apostles as priests of the

New Testament. Number six, the sacrifice of the mass is properly offered for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, not only for the living, but for the dead as well.

Finally, number seven, anyone who denies the truthfulness of any of these proclamations is under the anathema of God.

So spoke Trent, and so taught the Roman Catholic Church for 400 years following. But there are many today who say, it's ancient history.

It's ancient history. Haven't you ever heard of Vatican II? That's all been changed.

Has it? Has the theology of the mass changed? I don't believe so.

I don't believe so at all. In the Constitution on the

Sacred Liturgy from Vatican II, we read, for it is through the liturgy, especially the divine

Eucharistic sacrifice, that the work of our redemption is exercised.

We also read, to accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in his church, especially in her liturgical celebration.

He is present in the sacrifice of the mass, not only in the person of his minister, the same one now offering to the ministry of priests who formally offered himself on the cross, but especially under the

Eucharistic species. In fact, you may have noticed, part of that from Vatican II is a quotation from Trent.

Does Vatican II see the Eucharist as a sacrament? The renewal in the

Eucharist of the covenant between the Lord and men draws the faithful into the compelling love of Christ and sets them afire.

From the liturgy, therefore, especially from the Eucharist, as from a fountain, grace is channeled to us.

If you know anything about what a sacrament is in Roman Catholicism, it is a channel of grace. Chapter 2 of the

Decree on Liturgy is specifically entitled, The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist. It says, at the

Last Supper, on the night when he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his body and blood.

He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the

Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection. A sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a

Paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace and a pledge of future glory is given to us.

Even the language of Vatican II is heavily influenced by the Council of Trent. Listen to this, they should be instructed by God's word and be refreshed at the table of the

Lord's body. They should give thanks to God by offering the immaculate victim, not only through the hands of the priest but also with him, they should learn to offer themselves too.

So far, I haven't heard anything of the Council of Trent being overthrown, only simply being re -established.

Under the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, we read, as often as the sacrifice of the cross, in which

Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed, is celebrated on an altar, the work of our redemption is carried on.

At the same time, the sacrament of the Eucharistic bread, the unity of all believers who form one body of Christ, is both expressed and brought about.

Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the divine victim to God and offer themselves along with it.

Elsewhere they exercise the sacred function of Christ, most of all in the Eucharistic liturgy.

There, acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming his mystery, they join in the offering of the faithful to the sacrifice of their head.

Until the coming of the Lord, they re -present and apply in the sacrifice of the Mass, the one sacrifice of the

New Testament, namely the sacrifice of Christ, offering himself once and for all to his Father as a spotless victim.

That sounds like Trent to me. I haven't seen anything changed at all. In fact, another document released

May 29, 1969, read that the fact that the lay person is now able to receive

Holy Communion in the hand should not suggest to him that this is ordinary bread or just any sacred object.

Rather, ought it to strengthen his sense of his dignity as a member of the mystical body of Christ, of which baptism and the grace of the

Eucharist make him a part? He will thus experience an increase of faith in the great reality of the body and blood of the

Lord which he touches with his hand. His respectful attitude should be proportionate to what he is doing.

I could read you many other passages where not only does

Vatican II re -establish and reaffirm what is taught, but that writers writing since then,

John Harden or Alan Shrek or other Roman Catholic authors, re -establish the same principles that are laid down in Trent.

That the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. That in the Mass, the fruit of the redemption that is purchased in Christ in the one sacrifice of the cross is applied to individuals.

So this then shows you some of the importance of the concept of transubstantiation.

For this is supposedly the same sacrifice because it is the same victim. Christ dying in a bloody manner on the cross, but in an unbloody manner in the sacrifice of the

Mass. Now, the Catholic is very quick to say that Christ does not die again.

Christ does not die again. He died once. But, the sacrifice of the

Mass, the sacrifice of Christ is re -presented in the sacrifice of the Mass.

Now, I pointed out to you that the emphasis is made by Trent. The only difference between the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the

Eucharist is bloody, unbloody. But you are already seeing that isn't the only difference.

That is major enough, but that is not the only difference. And so we have a means of propitiation, a means for the removal of the stain of sin that I submit to you is outside of the completed work of Jesus Christ as presented in the

New Testament. And that indeed is the fatal flaw.

For if anything is taught with clarity in the New Testament, it is this. There is no other way of propitiation outside of the finished, completed once for all work of Jesus Christ.

Now, we will examine the teaching of Scripture in regards to the Atonement of Christ and we will point out as we go through the

Holy Sacred Scriptures, the differences, the vast differences between what is taught in the pages of the

Word of God in regards to the work of Christ and the effect of that work, and what is taught in Roman Catholicism.

The two are not the same. Now, having looked at what the

Roman Catholic Church teaches in its dogmatic statements concerning the doctrine of the sacrifice of the

Mass, I wish to turn us to Scripture now to look at, first of all, the concept of transubstantiation briefly.

It is not my main interest to deal specifically with transubstantiation. I will deal with some of the proof text quickly, and I primarily wish to deal with the atoning work of Christ in light of what we have just seen from the

Roman Catholic perspective. Now, one of the primary passages that is used by the

Roman Church in support of the doctrine of transubstantiation is found in John 6.

John 6, primarily beginning at verse 53. John 6, 53 -54, which reads,

John 6, 53 -54, which reads, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Now, in many of the apologetic works that you will read, this will be the first passage that is referred to.

I know that in modern Catholic works, especially those that are directed toward us fundamentalists, who accept the

Bible as the only authority, frequently the discussion will start with, see what

Jesus says here. We believe this. We accept this. Why don't you?

Why do you have to spiritualize this? We're the ones that accept the straightforward meaning of the text.

Well, is the straightforward meaning of this text connected in any way with the

Eucharist, with what we have just seen from the Cans and Decrees of the Council of Trent or Vatican II or anything else?

Is it connected in any way? Well, you can see how the Roman Catholic thinks that it is. It speaks of the eating of the flesh of the

Son of Man and drinking his blood, and this clearly is what we have in the Eucharist, is it not?

But let me point out that simply from a logical perspective, immediately we recognize that these words are uttered long before the

Last Supper, long before it takes place. Well, this is just a prophecy of what's going to be happening, but you have no further elaboration of this in the power of our

Lord. It's certainly not part of his teaching, and we haven't even gotten to looking at the Last Supper to see if it can even be understood in that way as well.

But the main thing I want to point out to you is that if you read John chapter 6 as a whole, you will never get the

Roman Catholic understanding of these words out of it. Why do I say this? Well, on the board,

I have given you just some passages from John 6. In John chapter 6 verse 40,

Jesus says that all the ones looking upon the Son and believing in him, what?

If you look at verse 40, may have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up in the last day.

But this is the world by far that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up in the last day.

Eternal life being raised up in the last day, Jesus uses synonymously throughout

John. Two different ways of expressing the same thing. So first Jesus says, the one who looks upon the

Son and believes in him has eternal life, will be raised up in the last day. Then in verse 44,

Jesus says, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Now the result is the same, is it not? In verse 40 and verse 44, the person is raised up on the last day.

But in verse 40, the beginning of the verse is, he who believes on the

Son, he who looks on the Son believes in him. And now in verse 44, that's restated as being drawn by the

Father. The result is the same. Are these two different things? Is one, he who looks on the

Son and believes in him, is that different than being drawn by the Father to the Son? No, if you are drawn by the

Father to the Son, you will look on the Son and believe in him. And the result is eternal life being raised up in the last day.

Well, look at verse 47, truly, truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

Eternal life, believe, looking and believing, drawn of the Father, believe, all resulting in the same thing.

And then in verses 53 and 54, same context, same chapter, same discussiveness going on, truly, truly

I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.

Now the last half of that verse is identical to verse 40, I myself will raise him up on the last day,

I myself will raise him up on the last day. Eternal life, eternal life, same thing. But in verse 40, it is the will of my

Father that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him may have eternal life and I myself will raise him up on the last day.

Verse 54, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.

Are these two different things? Do you have to believe and then separately from that be drawn by the

Father and then separately from that look on the Son and then separately from that eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood?

Or are all these different ways of saying the same thing? You must be united with Jesus Christ to be raised up.

You see, the context of this chapter is that at the beginning the 5 ,000 are fed and Jesus provides them food and they follow him and Jesus utilizes that all the way from the beginning.

Look at verses 26 -27, truly, truly I say to you, you seek me not because you saw signs but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.

Do not work for the food which perishes but for the food which endures to eternal life which the Son of Man shall give you for on him the

Father even God has set his seal. In John chapter six

Jesus begins to present his person, who he is, in very explicit formulation, in very straightforward language.

But the people cannot accept it. The people will not accept it. And so Jesus expresses the same truth over and over again in different ways.

He talks about looking on the Son. He talks about believing the Son. He talks about being drawn by the

Father. And then, since these people are keeping bringing up, well, you know, Moses gave us the man in the wilderness, what are you going to do?

It is greater since they keep bringing these things up. He says, okay, alright, I will use the examples you are using.

Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, I am the true bread that came down out of heaven.

Now almost every single one of the Roman Catholic presentations this thing will say, and you know what makes our interpretation of this proven?

It is that the people walked away from Christ, they were offended at his words, they walked away, and Jesus did not say, oh, you misunderstood me.

Look at the books yourself. They will say, see? See? The disciples walked away and Jesus did not correct them.

So that must mean they understood it in this way. They understood that you actually had to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life.

They understood it literally, they were offended at that, and they walked away because of that. And see, that proves it.

That is what he is talking about here. Notice verse 59.

These things he said in the synagogue as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples when they heard this said, this is a difficult statement.

Who can listen to it? Literally, who can hear it? Who is able to hear it? But Jesus, conscious that his disciples grumbled this, said to them, does this cause you to stumble?

What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing.

The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life, but there are some of you who do not believe.

For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe and who it was that would betray him.

And he was saying, verse 65, imperfect in the Greek tense, over and over again, for this reason

I have said to you that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father.

That, verse 66, as a result of this, many of his disciples withdrew and were not walking with him anymore.

As a result of what? Of what he said back in verses 53 and 54? No! Of what he said in verse 65, which is a reiteration of what he said in verse 44.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. It was not what he said about his being the bread coming down out of heaven and eating his flesh and drinking his blood that caused them to stumble and to walk away.

It was the continued assertion that no one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the

Father. It is not in the capacity of man to come to Christ outside of the sovereign work of God.

And they walked away at that! Don't give me that! And doesn't it continue today? You dare open your mouth and say that God is sovereign in the matter of salvation and be prepared to duck.

It is the same in Capernaum as it is today. Man rebels against the sovereignty of God in salvation.

Now, notice that when he spoke about this eating his flesh and drinking his blood, notice in verse 56 he says, the one who does that abides in me and I in him.

Abides in me and I in him. On the night of his betrayal over in John chapter 15, remember

John 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, it's all in one night, Jesus talks about being the true vine.

And he talks about, I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

Verse 7, if you abide in me and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish and it shall be done for you. Just as the

Father has loved me, I have also loved you. Abide in my love. Here is this abiding.

Is anything said here in any way, shape, or form about abiding in Christ through a

Eucharistic sacrifice? If you look at 15 and 16, the thing that unites the believer to Jesus Christ is the

Holy Spirit of God, not participation in the ceremony. It's the

Holy Spirit of God that does that. And so we see that these terms that are used all equaling the same thing are parallels of one another.

This is simply referring to union with Christ, not a sacrament that doesn't even exist yet.

Now let us turn to Matthew chapter 26 and look at the supposed establishment of that.

Matthew chapter 26, beginning at verse 26. And while they were eating,

Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing he broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, Take eat, this is my body.

And when he had taken a cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sin.

But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my

Father's kingdom. Now this passage along with the parallel passages in Luke and Mark, as well as the passage in 1

Corinthians chapter 11 verses 23 and following, is referred to, as we have already seen, by the

Catholic Church as a literal statement in which

Jesus says, This is my body. Here is the bread, this is my body, it's literal, it must be interpreted literally, the disciples must have understood it literally, and hence we have the foundation of the

Eucharistic sacrifice. And in fact, we notice that according to Rome, this is actually the first instance where Jesus actually offers up a sacrifice under the form of bread and wine.

Now, the controversy has raged for 400 years, at least, in regards to the meaning of these terms.

The Protestant says, please, Jesus frequently says, this is, or I am, and speaks in a figure, does he not?

I am the true vine, you are the branches. This does not make Jesus literally a vine or people branches.

I am the door. He's not actually a door, but I am the door.

Are these to be taken literally? And the response immediately is, what you've got to remember, this is the night of his betrayal.

And on the night of his betrayal, he's not going to be speaking in figures. He's going to be speaking straightforwardly because this is important.

Well, maybe. I certainly recognize that this is important, but I seem to recall that Jesus John 15 is also on the same night, is it not?

And there Jesus says, I am the vine, you are the branches. So, on the very night, in the last moments that he has with his disciples, he uses figures.

He uses symbols. Did the disciples misunderstand him? Did they literally think he was speaking of a literal vine and literal branches?

Well, of course not. So, when Jesus breaks the bread and the cup, are we to understand this, that before the sacrifice of Christ, before the cross, you have the sacrifice of the man?

How could this sacrifice then draw its effectiveness from the cross if it happened beforehand? But surely, the text itself,

Jesus says in verse 28, but I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when

I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. After the blessing, which according to the

Roman Catholic teaching, after the consecration, that's no longer the fruit of the vine, is it?

Oh, it may look like it, but it's no longer the fruit of the vine. The substance has been changed into the fruit of his blood, into the substance of his blood.

But Jesus refers to it as the fruit of the vine, even after the supposed consecration. Jesus gives us no indication that this is not the fruit of the vine, and there is nothing, nothing whatsoever in the text that would prohibit us from understanding it in what is really the obvious meaning.

Jesus is about to go to the cross, and he establishes a means whereby his church would remember his broken body represented by the bread, the blood that is spilled represented by the wine.

Now, you say, well, you know, I still think it could be taken literally. Okay. Let's not argue about the fact.

Let's ask this question. Wouldn't it be most important to determine what the apostles themselves believed about this?

And if the apostles really believed that this was a sacrifice, a propitiatory sacrifice, will we not be able to see this in their teachings about the work of Christ?

Certainly. So, let us go to the scriptures and find out what these men who were there that night, or the

Apostle Paul, who was led by the Holy Spirit of God, believed about the sacrifice of Christ.

And if they had a belief that is in conformity with and harmony with the Roman Catholic perspective, they would be able to see that.

But if not, if the disciples themselves, the apostles of our Lord, teach that Jesus Christ is sacrificed but once, and that sacrifice is never represented, never repeated, then obviously they didn't take

Matthew 26 in the way that the

Roman Catholic Church does. But, let us look at it. The sacrifice of the man.

That term, sacrifice. In the

New Testament, what is taught concerning the death of Christ?

Turn with me to Roman chapter 3, verse 25. Romans chapter 3.

The first thing that we see from scripture is that the death of Christ on the cross is fully and completely propitiatory.

Romans chapter 3. Let's begin with verse 24. Being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom

God displayed publicly as a propitiation in his blood through faith.

The death of Christ is propitiatory. Keep your finger there in Romans, and let me just read to you

Hebrews chapter 2, verse 17. Hebrews chapter 2, verse 17.

Therefore, he had to be made like his brethren in all things, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Now, what is propitiation? Propitiation involves the complete and total remission of sin.

It involves the removal of guilt, and the removal of sin, and the removal of the sin itself along with all punishments due it.

A sin that is propitiated is gone. It is taken care of.

It is atoned. And since it is atoned, there remains no grounds any longer for punishment.

If temporal punishments remain, then sin has not been propitiated. But Christ is the propitiation for sins, or as Hebrews 2, verse 17 put it, he is the propitiation for the people, the people of God.

Christ's death is propitiatory. Secondly, Christ's death results in reconciliation.

Turn over to Romans chapter 5. You may not even have to turn. You might be on the same page as we were in Romans 3.

Romans 5, verses 8 -11. But God demonstrates his own love toward us in that while we were yet sinners,

Christ died for us in our place. Much more than having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through him.

For if while we were sinners we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

So the death of Christ brings about reconciliation. How? Look back at the text.

Christ died in our behalf, verse 8. Because of this, we are now justified by his blood.

Justification means being made righteous, having the right standing before God.

And how do you have the right standing before God? Only in the blood of Jesus Christ.

And if Jesus Christ has died for you, you have been justified.

You do not stand before God righteous because the temporal punishments of your sins have been purged by your sufferings in purgatory or by the application of merits from a treasury of merits or through an experience in the

Mass. If you are going to be just or righteous, you are just or righteous only in his blood.

And please remember the Mass is a what kind of sacrifice? Unbloody sacrifice.

So we are justified, having now been, past tense action has been completed. We are justified in his blood.

We shall be saved from the wrath of God through him. The believer who stands in the blood of Christ does not experience the wrath of God.

Now I don't know if you have ever read any of the visions of purgatory that people supposedly have had.

But if you suffer penalties from sin, you are suffering the wrath of God.

Or there is no need for temporal punishments if God's wrath has not been fulfilled. But why can we who are justified not experience the wrath of God?

Because the wrath of God has fallen upon our substitute, Jesus Christ, who is the propitiation.

And propitiation contains as a part and parcel of its meaning, the removal of the wrath of the one offended against the offender.

So Christ dies for us. We are justified in his blood. We are saved from the wrath of God. And even while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his

Son. If Jesus Christ dies for you, you are reconciled to God.

There is nothing here that says the death of Christ makes a way of reconciliation available.

It says we were reconciled by the death of his Son. And much more than that, having now been reconciled, the relationship between the sinner and God has been reconciled in the death of Jesus Christ.

Let's say you and I have a relationship and someone comes along and our relationship has been broken.

Someone comes along and reconciles the relationship. If I still have to worry about receiving punishment for you for wrongs

I've done, we are not truly reconciled. That's not reconciliation. Two parties are not reconciled when there is still punishment involved.

But we have been reconciled to God through the death of his Son and much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

We are not just simply put into a neutral position in God's sight, but because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we have a positive position in God's sight.

We have, as we will see here in a few moments, the very righteousness of Christ. Turn with me to the book of Colossians.

Chapter 1. Colossians 1 verses 21 -22.

And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet he has now reconciled you in his fleshly body through death in order to present you before him holy and blameless and beyond reproach.

Notice what he says. You've been reconciled, how? In his fleshly body through death.

The death of Christ results in reconciliation for those for whom it is made.

Now stop with me here just for a moment and let me point out one of the many differences between the atoning work of Christ as presented in the

New Testament and the concept of the Mass. We are told according to Roman Catholics, it's the same sacrifice.

It draws its efficacy from the cross, but I ask you, the death that Jesus died results in the complete and total reconciliation of those for whom it's made.

Does the Mass? Does the Mass? Any honest

Roman Catholic will tell you, you could sit through a thousand Masses and still end up in purgatory.

Still end up with the stain of sin on your soul. So it doesn't result in complete and full reconciliation.

And if it doesn't, it is not the sacrifice of Christ. 2

Corinthians 5. Classic passage in the subject of reconciliation.

We will look at just a few, particularly verse 19. The ministry of reconciliation, namely that God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.

What does that mean? What does this reconciliation involve? Not counting their trespasses against them.

How can a holy God not count your trespasses against you? How? Only if those trespasses have been forgiven.

If the wrath of God has been fulfilled. And how is that? Only in Jesus Christ.

Only in him. If punishments remain, reconciliation has not taken place.

Thirdly, Christ's death is substitutionary. Look down at verse 21 in the same passage.

He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

The atonement of Jesus Christ is vicarious, substitutionary.

He dies in the place of the sinner. He bears the guilt and the eternal punishment and all punishment or he is not a substitute.

The passage says that he became sin in our place, in our behalf.

If he became sin, did he become part of sin? Did he become only certain kinds of sin?

No. He became sin in our place. What? That we might become the righteousness of God in him.

The result of Jesus Christ dying in behalf of the sinner is that that sinner then receives the righteousness of God.

Do you remember one of the last things said by Trent in regards to the fact that the mass was properly applied to those who have departed in Christ?

Do you remember the last little phrase, but not yet fully purified? My friend, there is no such thing.

There is no person who can be in Christ Jesus. Look at this verse.

Where do you have the righteousness of God? In him. In him.

There can be no person who is in him who does not have the righteousness of God. So how dare anyone say and speak about those who depart in Christ, but are not yet fully purified.

If you are in Christ, then he has died as your substitute. And to say that you can be in Christ and depart not yet fully purified is to say that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ does not accomplish its intended end.

Turn with me back to the prophecy of Isaiah 53.

Listen to this prophecy 700 years before Christ about his work.

He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And like one from whom men hide their face, he was despised and we did not esteem him.

Surely our grief he himself bore, our sorrows he carried.

Yet we ourselves are esteemed him, stricken, smitten of God and afflicted.

But he was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities.

The chasing for our well -being fell upon him. And by his scourging we are healed.

All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way. But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.

He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter and like a sheep that is silent before it shears, so he did not open his mouth.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living?

His grave was assigned with wicked men, yet he was with a rich man in his death, because he had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in his mouth.

But the Lord was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief. If he would render himself as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, he will prolong his days, and with good pleasure the

Lord will prosper in his hands. As a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see it and be satisfied.

By his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, will justify the many as he will bear their iniquities.

Substitutionary atonement, spoken of seven centuries before Christ came. He is truly the substitute.

He bears their iniquities. If Christ bears a person's iniquity, does he fail in his bearing of them?

Can we possibly say that the death of Christ is not enough?

Are there still punishments to be undergone? No. If Christ dies for a person, that person has the perfect substitute in Jesus Christ.

Not only this, but all those for whom Christ died are redeemed.

There is no other means of redemption than through him. Redemption means the forgiveness of sins.

Look at Colossians 1. Again, verse 14. Colossians 1 .14.

Redemption is not simply the removal of legal bars. Redemption is not simply removing hindrances.

Redemption is the forgiveness of sins. Verse 14. In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

You'll find the same phrase repeated in Ephesians 1 .7, except there it is. In whom we have redemption, through his blood the forgiveness of sins.

Those for whom Christ died are redeemed. Their sins are forgiven.

Now, in the slave market, when you would redeem someone, when you would buy them out of slavery, you didn't buy them out of slavery and then let their old masters come along and whip up on them once in a while.

They were redeemed. They were brought out of that situation. You're either redeemed or you're not redeemed.

Your sins are either forgiven or they're not forgiven. It's not a half -and -half situation.

According to Romans 3 .24 that we read earlier, if you want to turn back, there are passages that are still packed with things.

Justification flows infallibly from redemption. Justification flows infallibly from redemption.

It doesn't in Roman Catholicism. All the grace of justification can be lost. Read the canons on justification from the

Council of Trent. For many

Roman Catholics, the concept is, all have been redeemed. That is, legal bars have been removed.

But you see, justification flows infallibly from redemption. Look at verse 24. Being justified as a gift by his grace is redemption which is in Christ Jesus.

Freely, past tense, justified, made righteous in God's sight.

How? Because Jesus has died as our substitute. Now, how many of our sins are forgiven in this?

Is it just sins up to a certain point and then, well, I'm just and then I'm not just and then

I'm just and I'm not just? No. This is not just simply an application of Christ's death.

We die with Christ. Remember what Paul says in Galatians 2 .20? I've been crucified with Christ, nevertheless

I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me. We've died with him. Remember what

Paul says in Romans 8? There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Why? Why? Why can there be no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus?

Because the law cannot condemn a dead person. That was Paul's point in Romans 7.

When a person dies, the law can't chase you into the grave. When you die, that's it.

The law can no longer bring condemnation to you. So if you've died with Christ, if he is truly your substitute and you've been united with him, the law no longer has any way of condemning you.

There can be no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus. For those that are in Christ Jesus have all of their sins forgiven, all of their transgressions according to Colossians 1 .14

are nailed to the cross of Calvary, and they have the righteousness of God in him.

Where is condemnation? There is none. There is none.

Paul says, therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ. The believer has been justified and has peace with God.

A person who is undergoing punishment from someone else is not at peace with that person.

He is not at peace with that person. We have peace with God through our

Lord Jesus Christ because we have been made righteous. We have been cleansed of our sins, all of them, in Christ Jesus.

Furthermore, the intercessory work of Christ refutes the concept of the

Eucharistic sacrifice. Why? Christ Jesus intercedes before the

Father on the basis of what? On the basis of his completed work.

Not on the basis of a work that is applied little by little to the man.

His sacrifice is a one -time thing, not something repeated over and over and over again. Turn with me to Hebrews chapter 7.

Now I know, the Catholic says, it's not a repetition, it's the same sacrifice. If it's the same sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ has the ability to perfect for all time those for whom it is made.

Can the mass? Can you go to one mass and be perfected for all time by that?

If you cannot, it is not the same sacrifice. It is not. Hebrews chapter 7, beginning in verse 24.

In the context he's been talking about the former priests, who existed in great numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing.

But he, on the other hand, verse 24, because he abides forever, holds his priesthood permanently.

Hence also, he is able to save forever, or to the uttermost, those who draw near to God through him since he always lives to make intercession for them.

So Christ intercedes, and he intercedes before the Father. And on what basis does he intercede for any one individual?

On the basis of his death in that person's place. On the basis of the work that he has done for that person.

His intercession simply involves the presentation of his completed work to the

Father in saying, I have substituted that person. He is righteous before you.

And because of that, he is able to save to the uttermost, completely.

Not dependent upon human works, not dependent upon human actions, he is able to save to the uttermost.

In fact, this whole book of Hebrews, over and over again, keeps making the same point. Look at chapter 9, beginning in verse 11.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, he entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, and not through the blood of goats and cows, but through his own blood he entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Well, did he or didn't he? Did he obtain eternal redemption?

Oh yes, but it still, it just has to be applied. That's not what it says. That's not what the passage says.

Are they redeemed or are they not? If they're redeemed, then they're just before God, righteous. If they're not redeemed, then they're not.

Now yes, I readily recognize the fact that this is exactly where most of modern

American, quote unquote, Protestant evangelicalism absolutely falls on its face. It cannot speak to the

Roman Catholic teaching here, because much of modern evangelicalism has accepted the

Roman Catholic concept that Christ can die for a person, and yet that person will still be lost. The modern evangelical has to say, well,

Christ can die for someone, oh yes, but that doesn't actually save anyone. Christ's death doesn't actually reconcile, it doesn't actually propitiate, it doesn't actually redeem.

It just hypothetically does, theoretically does, it makes it possible. Few there are that will openly and directly say

Christ's death and Christ's death alone propitiates, reconciles, redeems, all of it, outside of human action.

The writer of Hebrews says when Jesus Christ entered in the holy place, he did not enter in there with redemption still a big question mark.

He obtained eternal redemption. He did it.

Through the rest of the chapter, the writer begins to talk about the fact that under the old law, sacrifices were offered over and over again.

Why? Well, because you'd come to the priest and you'd offer your sacrifice. The sacrifice would be effective in a sense for the sins you've committed, but you see, it didn't change you.

And so you'd go out the next day and you'd sin again, and so you'd need another sacrifice. The sacrifice didn't change you, it didn't perfect you.

It was a stop -gap measure, and so it had to be offered over and over and over again, because it couldn't perfect the person for whom it was made.

But, he says, that's back then. That's the old law.

In chapter 10, he says, otherwise, these sacrifices, they couldn't perfect people, otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshippers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have consciousness of sin?

If those sacrifices were really powerful, then there would have been a perfection of the person.

No, that's not what happened. The sacrifice of Christ is different.

Look at verse 10 of chapter 10. By this will, we have been sanctified for the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once more.

And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins, but he having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until his enemies be made of footstools for his feet.

For by one offering, he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us, for after saying, this is the covenant that I will make with them, after those days, says the

Lord, I will put my laws upon their heart, and upon their mind I will write them. He then says, in their sins, in their lawless deeds,

I will remember no more. Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Do you hear what he's saying? Do you catch what he's saying there?

The death of Christ is not like the old sacrifices that had to be offered over and over again because they couldn't perfect the person for whom they made them.

The sacrifice of Christ is offered just once. Why? Because it changes the person for whom it's made.

It accomplishes its intention. It brings sanctification.

It brings perfection. It brings forgiveness of sins, and verse 18, where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

What did Trent say about the mass? Didn't it say it was a perpetuatory sacrifice?

Didn't you say it was offered for, the

Roman Catholic Church claims, it's the same sacrifice? I say, no it's not. If it were, it would partake of the description of the sacrifice that is given here in Holy Scripture.

And Holy Scripture says, by this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Oh, but you receive that? No you don't, it says once for all. It says Jesus entered into that place and he sat down having made one sacrifice.

And no matter what Mr. O 'Brien says in his book about the priest causing

Jesus, if you put on the altar, Jesus is still sitting where he sat down because his work is completed and done and finished.

He doesn't have to come back to do it again. One sacrifice, one time.

And the difference is that the sacrifice perfects those for whom it is made, therefore it need not be applied again and again and again.

If it has to be done over again, then it wasn't perfect in the first place. So, the differences between the work of Christ and the

Mass prove that the Mass is not the same sacrifice. The Roman Church admits that the work of Christ at Calvary was a bloody sacrifice, while the

Mass is unbloody. But for it to be a sacrifice, it involves the giving of life, dying.

In the Mass, Christ does not die again, nor is his blood shed. But the writer of Hebrews says, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.

Hence, if there is no shedding of blood, there can be no saving efficacy in the

Mass. Secondly, the Atonement of Christ on the cross accomplishes full and complete remission of sin, while the

Roman Mass does not. The Roman Mass is dependent upon the disposition of the individual for its effectiveness, and even then it is terribly limited.

Hence, it cannot be the same sacrifice. For the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. Can you imagine anything farther removed from New Testament teaching than the idea that the efficacy and power of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary is dependent upon men?

And yet, and yet, some of you are thinking with me, it's not just the

Roman Catholics who teach that. How much of modern

American Christianity says, Jesus died for everybody.

But, you see, his death only becomes effective when you do.

Some people don't think that the death and atonement of Jesus Christ is really something we should be very concerned about.

The more and more I study it, the more and more I feel that it is most definite. Thirdly, and as we begin to wrap up, the

Atonement of Christ perfects forever those who are sanctified by it, as we saw in Hebrews 10.

The Mass does not. The sacrifice of Christ never needs to be repeated.

Its work is accomplished. It's finished. It's perfect. If a sacrifice needs to be repeated because of further imperfection in the object of the sacrifice, in the sinner, then that sacrifice is, in and of itself, imperfect.

And if we say this about the sacrifice of Christ, then we are providing the foundation for what has been said over and over again.

Remember back in Trent, one of the canons, the canons of decrees, the

Council of Trent, regards the Mass. It's obvious that Christians had already been saying this over and over again.

When it talks about the offering of the sacrifice, one of the canons anathematizes someone.

We looked at some of them, can one about the real sacrifice and things like that. But then farther down,

Canon 4 says this. If anyone says that by the sacrifice of the Mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross, or that the former, that is the sacrifice of the

Mass, derogates from the latter, that is the sacrifice of Christ, let him be.

I submit to you that there is no way that a person led by the

Holy Spirit of God, who believes in the

Word of God, can escape the anathema of the cross.

But I will take that anathema gladly, because it's simply the anathema of the cross.

In Galatians 1, 8, and 9, you have the anathema of God. I'm not willing to take that.

You're going to believe what this book says about the death of Christ. You're going to have to be anathematized by Canon 4.

It's an either -or situation. You can't escape it. So we have seen, from Scripture, descriptions of the work of Christ that are in no way consistent with the sacrifice of the

Mass. Therefore, the sacrifice of the Mass cannot be the sacrifice of the

Mass. Hence Roman Catholicism presents to us, and this is just one of the ways we saw in Purgatory and other ways, a way outside of the one time, including the work of Jesus Christ, whereby sins can be propitiated.

Satisfaction is made. Punishment for sin is atoned for. This is the fatal flaw.

You can buy all sorts of books from all sorts of people that will blast this or blast that about Roman Catholicism.

That is irrelevant, outside of the recognition of one thing. The atonement of Jesus Christ is the core, the center, of the

Gospel itself. If you have such a horrid falsehood about the completed work of Christ, then you don't have the

Gospel. That's the fatal flaw. That's where it's gone all wrong.

Yet, is that normally when Christians encounter

Roman Catholicism? Is that normally what is discussed? Popes, Mary, and various and sundry other things,

Inquisitions, and everything else, that seems to be what's talked about. Those are not relevant outside of how they relate to the fact that we have a message.

That message is that Jesus Christ has died for sinners and that the death of Jesus Christ accomplishes that for which he intended it.

What a tremendous message of liberation we have for those people. What a tremendous message.

With that, I would like to close with a word of prayer and then take some of your questions.

Some things that may not have been clear to you in regards to what was presented this evening. So, let's bow for a word.

Our Father, we are truly grateful that in your words you have revealed yourself as our

Creator, as the Holy God of all creation. That you've told us about our sin.

You've shown us that there is nothing that we can do. We are utterly helpless to save ourselves or to even make the first step towards it.

We did not choose you, but you chose us. You drew us by your grace.

You generated us by your Spirit. You opened our eyes to see the work of Jesus Christ as our only

Savior. God, we thank you that in your word we are freed from the treadmill of works, penances, punishments.

That we see you not as the punishing God, but as our loving

Father who placed our transgressions, our sins, our guilt on Jesus Christ.

Punish them there. In your infinite mercy you gave to us the righteousness that only comes from you.

A righteousness that is not ours by right, but ours by adoption through Jesus Christ.

A righteousness that is complete, perfect, eternal, given to us by grace, maintained by grace.

Oh God, we thank you. Lord, we would ask that as we go through the result of this evening, we might be bold in our witness.

We might share with those around us the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. For we did not deserve it.

There was nothing in us that merited it. But you have given us the ministry of reconciliation.

You have entrusted to us the word of your gospel. Father, we thank you for that.

We ask that you would truly be good stewards of it. We pray these things in Jesus' name.