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.

The Foundation: Sin, Merit, Indulgences, and Purgatory

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's 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 penance, I'm sorry, 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.

Okay? 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's 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 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 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? 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.

Okay? 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.

The Council of Trent's Teaching on Transubstantiation and the Real Presence

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 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.

Unquote. So the first thing they say is that after the consecration, after the prayer wherein 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 Evangelist and afterwards repeated by St. 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, the Flesh and Blood of Christ is denied.

Contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as 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.

What's that? 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 it 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.

The Council of Trent's Teaching on the Sacrifice of the Mass

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 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 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 that 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 of 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 in 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 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. Those sins, I'm sorry, 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.