The Roman Mass (White vs Sungenis)

The Debate Format and the Question at Hand

Jason Wallace, I am pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church, and I am functioning as the moderator here this evening. We have two very distinguished speakers. On my left, we have Mr. Robert Synginus. He is the executive director of Catholic Apologetics International.

He authored Not by Faith Alone, the Biblical Evidence of the Catholic Doctrine of Justification, and hosted an EWTN series by the same title. He also wrote and co-hosted The Truth About Scripture and Tradition with Patrick Madrid on EWTN.

His other books include Not by Scripture Alone, a Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and Not by Bread Alone, the Biblical and Historical Evidence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

On my right, we have Dr. James White. He is a Protestant apologist with Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author of roughly 20 books, including Letters to a Mormon Elder, The Roman Catholic Controversy, The Potter's Freedom, and The God Who Justifies.

He is also a professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. It's a mouthful. My brother-in-law is actually a professor there as well. It is a great pleasure to have both of them here. The subject for tonight's debate is whether the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice.

We're going to begin with Mr. St. Genes.

The Catholic Mass as a Propitiatory Sacrifice

First, let me welcome you all for coming. And I appreciate everybody taking the time to come out to an event like this. And I'm sure this is not on the top of your list of things to do on weekends, but these are very rare events.

And I'm glad I have the opportunity again to debate James. It is difficult for me, however, to compress 2 ,000 years of Catholic teaching on the mass into 20 minutes, but that's what my task is before you tonight.

If you want any more detail about it, I have written a book on it, 500 pages, called Not by Bread Alone. And it has all the thing you would ever want to know about the Catholic mass, but were afraid to ask, and sometimes probably didn't want to ask.

But it is all there for you. So what I don't cover here, because I please be afford yourself the opportunity to read the book. And I am also giving a 10 discount on it. It was $14 .95. And so if you really are interested in it, please do so.

I would like to say, first of all, that before I start my debating, that I, as a Catholic, believe that scripture is inspired and it is inerrant. I say that because some of my Catholic church have fallen by the wayside and no longer believe that, or they believe a diluted form of that.

But I don't. I hold to the traditional dogma of the Catholic church. And that is that the scripture is inspired and inerrant. Dr. White also knows that I hold to that. So he will be debating tonight from the vantage point that the traditional dogmas of the Catholic church are what is being given to you tonight.

And he knows that they will not change. And thus, he can argue quite steadfastly against them if he so chooses, and knows that all the traditional dogmas that have been taught by the church are still true today.

And despite our belief that scripture teaches that the church and tradition are also authorities, for the sake of this debate, I will confine my analysis to scripture, since that is what Dr. White accepts as his only authority.

In most cases, I will be arguing against Dr. White's interpretation of scripture. But ironically, in some cases, I will be agreeing with Dr. White's interpretation, since as you will see, at times, his interpretation is quite Catholic.

I know that raised a few eyebrows. For instance, in his book, The Fatal Flaw, on page 134, Dr. White says this. He quotes Hebrews 9, verses 11 and 12. And I'll read those verses as they appear in his book.

But when Christ appeared as high priest of the good things to come, he entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of this creation. Neither did he enter the holy place once for all through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption, unquote.

And then Dr. White goes on to argue this. On what basis does Christ enter into the holy place? Not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood. He enters into the presence of the Father, having obtained eternal redemption.

Christ presents himself before the Father as the perfect oblation in behalf of his people. His work of intercession, then, is based on his work of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the Father.

Jesus does not implore the Father to be merciful to men without grounds for that mercy, does he? Would the Son ask the Father to compromise his holiness and justice by simply overlooking sin? Surely not.

Rather, the Son intercedes for men before the Father on the basis of the fact that in his death he has taken away the sins of God's people, and therefore, by presenting his finished work on Calvary before the Father, he assures the application of the benefits of his death to those for whom he intercedes.

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that whatever else Dr. White believes about the Catholic Church, this statement of his is in full support of the essence of the Catholic mass. Let me read parts of it again for you, in case you didn't hear it the first time.

His work of intercession, that is, based on his work of atonement. Intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the Father. He has taken away the sins of God's people, and therefore, by presenting his finished work on Calvary before the Father, he assures the application of the benefits of his death to those for whom he intercedes.

Now, let's find out what Dr. White means about that statement. In the footnote attached to the paragraph, in the back of his book, it reads this. The intimate relationship between the propitiatory work of Christ and his work of intercession can be seen as well in 1 John 2, verses 1 and 2.

Now, if you have a Bible, you might want to look that verse up, 1 John 2, verses 1 and 2, which says that Christ is the propitiation for our sins when we sin. So here we have Dr. White talking about a propitiatory work of Christ connected with intercession, and so we know what he means in the previous statement when he talked about Christ interceding for us before the Father.

But this is precisely what happens at the Catholic Mass. Christ offers his propitiatory sacrifice on the cross to the Father in heaven for our sins. Listen to what the Council of Trent said, which is also recorded in Dr. White's book, whereby that bloody sacrifice wants to be accomplished on the cross might be represented, the memory thereof remain even to the end of the world, and its salutary effects applied to 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.

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 draw nigh to God, we obtain mercy and find forgiveness in seasonable aid.

For appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. Again, I submit to you that Dr. White's statement is almost identical to that of the Council of Trent, even to the point of Dr. White saying in his footnote that the intercession of Hebrews 9 verse 12 that Christ now presents to the Father is the propitiatory work of the cross.

Now let's pause for a moment and ask, why would this message of a propitiatory intercession be so important in the book of Hebrews? The simple answer is 51 of the book of Hebrews concerns the issue of sin and the temptation to fall away from the faith, 51%.

8 talks about the new covenant, 40 talks about the intercessory work of Christ. The message of Hebrews then is, if you find yourself falling into sin and being tempted to fall away, go to Christ, your heavenly intercessor.

You'll notice that some of the grievous sins that Hebrews talks about, for example, in Hebrews 10 verse 26, it says that if we willfully sin, there remains no more sacrifice for sin. Now, it's interesting that he used the word sacrifice there because that means the sacrifice is not being applied to someone who willfully sins.

I submit to you, there is a better intercession, there is no better intercession, than the Catholic mass, which presents the propitiatory power of the cross to the Father. In our last debate on the mass in 1999, Dr. White tried to answer this statement of his that I read from his book by saying that the presentation of the work of the cross to the Father, quote, was not a different work, but the same work, unquote.

But this only further corners Dr. White since Catholic doctrine does not consider the mass a different work, but the same precise sacrifice of Calvary. If it was different, then we would have two separate sacrifices.

But the Roman Catholic Church insists there is only one sacrifice, as Dr. White knows very well. Incidentally, critics often accuse Catholicism of ignoring the verses that say Christ was sacrificed once for all.

You'll find that about a half a dozen times or more in the book of Hebrews. But we don't ignore them any more than Dr. White ignores them by saying that Christ, as part of his office of continual intercession, presents the work of the cross to the Father.

Moreover, Hebrews 9 verse 12 says that Christ entered the holy place once for all. The only reason this phrase once for all appears in this context is to contrast what the high priest did in the Old Testament as to what Christ does in the New Covenant.

For example, once a year, as Hebrews 9 goes on to explain, the high priest would go in to the Holy of Holies and he would offer the sacrifice. He would have to do that every year. He would go in, and as a matter of fact, it was such a solemn ceremony that they used to put bells on his ankles and tie a rope to his ankle, and the rope would extend outside so the men could hold onto that rope while the priest was in the Holy of Holies.

And the reason they did that was that if for a chance he had sinned, then the Lord would have struck him dead in the Holy of Holies, and they wouldn't hear the bells ringing anymore because he would be dead on the floor so they would pull him out by the rope.

That's how solemn of a ceremony that was. But what the Hebrew writer is doing is contrasting the fact that the high priest had to go in to the Holy of Holies once per year and then go out again and then go back in again the next year and then go out, and then the next year, and ad infinitum.

But Christ does not. The Hebrew writer is telling us, his argument is that Christ enters once into the Holy of Holies, and he does not go out anymore. That's his argument in Hebrews 9, verse 12. He shed his own blood, not somebody else's blood, and therefore, when he goes into the Holy of Holies, he stays.

And does not go out. And thus, he only has to do it one time. Once Christ enters, he is there to stay. While he is there, what is he doing? Well, as Dr. White agreed, and as I agree from the Council of Trent, he is presenting his work of the cross to the Father as he stays in the Holy of Holies, not having to come out any longer.

In fact, in Hebrews 9, 23, and 24, it goes on to argue, again, comparing the old covenant to the new covenant, therefore, it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, that is the Old Testament sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these, that is the Old Testament sacrifices.

Let me read that again. But the heavenly things, that the things in heaven with better sacrifices than those, those over there, the old covenant. And then in verse 24, for Christ, for, the word for is telling us what is the reasoning behind why they need better sacrifices in heaven.

24 goes on to tell us, it says, for Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the Holy of Holies, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.

Note the words better sacrifices in the plural. There are no Greek textual variants to this verse. I've read Protestant commentaries on this passage, and they are puzzled as to why Paul would suddenly shift from singular to plural.

What could that mean? Apparently the Hebrew writer neither has a problem in referring to Christ's propitiatory intercession in heaven as sacrifices, plural, nor that they are, he has no problem saying that they're plural sacrifices, and he has no problem saying that they're sacrifices to begin with.

You see, in heaven, Christ is presenting a sacrifice according to the Hebrew writer. And it's not only a sacrifice, he says it's sacrifices. Provided, as Hebrews 9 .25 goes on to say, that Christ does not offer himself often as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with the blood not his own.

It's not saying that Christ can't offer the sacrifices in heaven, but that he does not do it like the priest of the Old Testament who had to go in the holy of holies and then go out because he was a sinful man and used someone else's blood.

The high priest goes in, and he goes out. Christ goes in and he stays. And there he offers the propitiatory sacrifice or as the Hebrew writer says, sacrifices. In other words, Christ need not keep entering the holy place by shedding his blood and dying again.

And this is why St. John Chrysostom and many other fathers said these things. Chrysostom said, quote, as then while offered in many places, he is one body and not many bodies. So also he is one sacrifice that we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted.

This is done in remembrance of what was then done. It is not another sacrifice as the high priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a sacrifice. Homilies on Hebrews.

Now notice the Chrysostom said, it is not another sacrifice as the high priest did. He's giving the same argument that the author of Hebrews gave. But we always offer the same sacrifice. It's no different.

Theodore of Mopsuestia says, the sacrifice of the new covenant was a memorial of the one true oblation and image or representation of the eternal liturgy, which is celebrated in heaven, where Christ, our high priest and intercessor now fulfills his ministry.

What he offers to the father in the Eucharist is his very self, once delivered to death on behalf of us all. Catechetical homilies. Jerome held that quote, the victim of the church's daily sacrifice is the savior himself.

Letters 21, 26. Ambrose says this, the oblation consists in his perpetual intercession for us before the father, offering his death on behalf of us all. He is also immolated on the altar so that what we receive in communion is the paschal lamb slain on the cross, on the 12 Psalms, 39A.

I could go on and on and on with the fathers. I think this is a representative sample of what they held. This is nothing new. These men were recipients of what the apostles taught. Where did they get their information?

They didn't make it up. If these gentlemen preached these kinds of things in those days and it was wrong, they would have been deemed heretics on the spot because every other thing that Dr. Wade and I believe today about certain things came from the fathers.

There's a lot that we agree on that came from the fathers. So it's hard to pick and choose from these gentlemen what we're going to believe and not believe, especially when we have a consensus that they have regarding the Catholic mass.

And you'll notice they're giving the same argument that I gave. It is not a new sacrifice. It is representative of Christ going into heaven and offering a propitiatory sacrifice in heaven to the father on our behalf as his role of intercessor.

And again, I will reiterate that that is exactly or something very similar to what I read in Dr. White's book. And so I'm sure he'll want to explain that when he gets his chance to come up here. Thank you very much.

The Atoning Work of Christ in Hebrews

We'll now have opening statements from Dr. White.

Well, good evening, especially to those of you who are here for two nights in a row. You are truly a glutton for punishment and I appreciate your being here on a second evening, much less clement weather than we had last evening.

As you have probably already seen, the majority of our debate this evening and I think properly will be on the subject of what the book of Hebrews teaches concerning the nature of the atoning sacrifice to the Lord Jesus Christ.

But I don't want us to skip past a couple of things I think are important to keep in mind. Let me begin my time with these words. It is plain to those who have been instructed in divine things that we do not offer any other sacrifice, but we make commemoration of that one saving sacrifice.

For the Lord himself commanded us saying, do this in remembrance of me. And this we do in order that by contemplation we may call to mind the figure of the sufferings which he underwent for us and may stir up our love toward our benefactor and await the fruition of good things to come.

Now, who could have made a comment such as this in regards to the Lord's Supper? Was it a Baptist? Was it someone in modern times? No, that was a man from the fifth century by the name of Theodoret. This perspective, we have already heard it said, claims to be 2 ,000 years old.

But I would simply point out to you that major elements that are important to our discussion this evening are admitted even by Roman Catholic historians and theologians to not be 2 ,000 years old. That is really the whole reason why such things as the development hypothesis had to come into vote was to explain how things that dogmatically have been defined as being apostolic in nature actually do not appear in the early church.

For example, the very term transubstantiation, which is important, in fact, vital to the understanding of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. For without Christ being physically present upon the altar, you could not have a propitiatory sacrifice or really any kind of sacrifice for sins at all.

That concept, obviously, does not come into vogue or even the terminology itself until much later. And we can demonstrate that if that is something that we need to address. But since this is a little bit of a shorter debate than we normally have, I think it's good that we focus primarily this evening, trusting you, the audience, to do the requisite study afterwards, if our comments should cause you to be interested in these things and to want to study them further, to focus this evening upon the nature of the atoning work of Christ.

Now, I would invite you to look to the book of Hebrews and to consider it. We were just told that 51 of the book of Hebrews contains warnings about falling away and apostasy. I would like to correct that.

I would say that 100 of the book of Hebrews is about one thing, the superiority of Jesus Christ to the old way. And if we understand this and understand that the writer to the Hebrews is writing to a mixed audience, that is, he's writing to the gathered church, he's writing to Hebrew believers who are under a tremendous amount of pressure to return back to the ways that they have left to follow Jesus Christ.

We know that they were put out of the synagogues. We know that they would lose family members, that there was tremendous pressure put upon them to return to the old ways. 100 of the book of Hebrews is an argument to demonstrate that there's nothing to go back to, that Christ is the final sacrifice, the final high priest, that he is superior to everything that was a part of the old covenant to which they would be called back in the temple worship or synagogue worship wherever they might be.

And so keeping that in mind, then we can understand the purpose of the writer to the Hebrews and when we interpret him within his own context, not within the context of dogmas defined by a church 1 ,000 years and more, for example, the fourth laddering council in regards to transubstantiation, not within that context, but the original context of the writer himself, then we can see exactly what it is that he would have us to understand.

Now, really the issue this evening is going to focus around whether Jesus Christ saves sinners or whether he attempts to save sinners and makes a way, if we cooperate, available. And if you were here last night, that came up a number of times then.

We are looking at, again, the conflict between monergism and synergism, between that perspective that says God saves by his power alone and that which says God makes us savable, but that there are things that we must do.

We are reminded of Paul's words in 1 Timothy 1 .15, it is a faithful saying, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, not simply to make sinners savable. But the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost, Luke 19 .10, and I simply ask us the question, does he do so?

Or again, do we need to modify that statement and say, well, he tries to seek and tries to save, but there is this problem that is in his way. And this comes up especially when we encounter the passages in the book of Hebrews.

And I'd like to look at just a few of them. No one in the amount of time that we have up here can do much more than just simply present these things to you, and again, place the responsibility upon you to consider the greater context that we are unable to address.

But if we look at Hebrews 7, verses 24 through 25, here, the writer is demonstrating the superiority of Christ's priesthood. And he says, but Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds his priesthood permanently, contrasting this with the old priests, who because they died, had to give up their priesthood, they were not able to perfect anyone who came unto God by them because of the fact of their sinfulness and the fact they did not have an abiding life.

Continuing on, therefore, describing Jesus, he is able to do what? He is able also to save forever or to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Now, here we have the assertion of the capability and capacity and power of Christ. Since he holds his priesthood permanently, he is able to save the uttermost. Now, in 1999, since Mr. St. Genes mentioned this, when we discussed this passage, Mr. St. Genes responded at one point, yes, Jesus wants to save, but the problem is this thing of sin.

Well, my assertion to you is Jesus is the sin bearer. He is the one who bore our sins in his body upon the cross, and therefore sin has been banished by him, and therefore it is not an impediment to his accomplishing his desire in saving to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, and why is he able to do so?

Since he always lives to make intercession for them. Jesus indeed does enter in but one time. However, keep in mind one thing as we look at all of these passages this evening. What is being presented as the biblical perspective on the nature of the death of Christ and its relationship to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass?

You must remember that in Roman Catholic theology, and some of you may be former Catholics. I know of individuals here who are. You may have experienced this yourself. You can go to mass 1 ,000 times, 5 ,000 times, 10 ,000 times, 20 ,000 times in your life, and yet die impure with the temporal punishments of sin upon your soul, requiring you to go to purgatory and undergo satis passio before you can enter into the presence of Christ, and in fact, at least historic Roman Catholic theology taught, this is not popular amongst many today in the Roman Catholic Church, but historic Roman Catholic theology taught that you could approach the mass all those times, and in fact, then commit a mortal sin and be lost for eternity.

And so keep in mind that when we hear it said, well, Christ is presenting his work, and actually what James is saying in his book is the same thing as what Rome is saying, that there is a major, major difference, and that is when I'm talking about the work of Jesus Christ and his propitiation of the sins of his people, I am talking about a completed work that perfects those for whom it is made, which is why Jesus is then able to save the uttermost, those who draw nigh unto God through him since he ever lives to make intercession for them.

There is nothing to be added. It is not a matter of my disposition when I come to a sacrament that then remits a certain portion of the punishments of my sins, but not all of the punishments of my sins, hence resulting in the need for penances and things to be added to perfect me and to bring me into the presence of Christ.

I am in no way, shape, or form promoting anything like that, and we must keep in mind throughout the debate this evening that this will be the fundamental issue. Does the death of Christ make us savable?

That is, is the mass a repetitive representation of the sacrifice of Christ that gives a certain portion of grace, a certain amount of grace, a certain amount of forgiveness, but does not perfect utterly those for whom it is made, or is the entire argument of the book of Hebrews in opposition to that very concept?

Look back with me to Hebrews chapter nine. We've already looked at them in Mr. St. Janice's presentation, but listen again and keep in mind the context of the argument. Make yourself an individual in the early church.

You're being wooed back to the old ways. You're being wooed back to the synagogue. You're being wooed back to Judaism. Listen to the argument of the writer. But when Christ appeared as a high priest to the good things to come, Hebrews 9, 11, 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.

Stop right there. You see the contrast. You have the sacrifices. You have the high priest. You have the shedding of the blood of the goats and calves, and you're being drawn back to that. And the writer of the Hebrews says, don't you see what has happened?

There has been one final sacrifice, and the high priest does not have to go back and forth with an imperfect sacrifice. He instead enters in, and why does he enter in? So that he then can present an imperfect sacrifice in there that does not perfect anyone for whom it is made over and over and over again?

Is the place where this imperfect, non-perfecting sacrifice made has just changed from being on the altar of the temple to being in heaven itself? Or is the argument that he has obtained eternal redemption?

There are no bells and ropes on Jesus's leg because we know the Father is satisfied with His perfect oblation, His perfect sacrifice. You see, he enters in and he sits down. The high priest had no place to sit in the holy place.

There was no place to sit because his work was never done. But you see, the Son's work is done, so he sits down. He has obtained eternal redemption. We continue on. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, again referring to the old covenant, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to God, notice offered himself, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

For this reason, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that since a death has taken place, the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

His work is perfect in behalf of all of his people. That is why it is said in Hebrews chapter two that he makes propitiation for the sins of the people, and that is why the angel said he will save his people from their sins.

That's why he is even called Jesus. And hence, in verses 24 through 28 of chapter nine, for Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.

Nor was it that he would offer himself often, and here is something I would challenge you to consider. I believe that to make any sense of the presentation that Mistress Ingenis is making concerning his particular understanding of these things, the idea of Christ's iterative sacrifice, what does iterative mean?

Well, it's a linguistic term. It refers to, for example, in Luke, it is said that the people would go up to the feasts. They were going up to the feasts. Well, it doesn't mean they were always going up.

It was an iterative concept. They would go up at the appointed times. There was this repetition, dot, dot, dot, dot, dot. That's the kind of presentation the Mass is. The Mass, in an individual person's experience, is not something that they're going to all the time.

It is something they go to with frequency. Now, is the idea of the sacrifice of Christ in the book of Hebrews consistent with this iterative idea of this constant representation over time? I do not believe that it is.

In fact, the argument here is it was not that he would offer himself often as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. Notice, it's not the going in and out. It's the offering.

It's the actual offering of the sacrifice, which is emphasized by the writer of the Hebrews as being once for all. Otherwise, he would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world. And I would point out to you that in Roman Catholic piety, the idea of Christ's oblation upon the altar, that he is called down to make that.

It's an unbloody sacrifice, but it is still the same sacrifice. That is what is alleged anyways. Otherwise, he would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world. But now, once at the consummation of the ages, he has been manifested to do what?

Put away sin. And if in this debate this evening, we do not see how the writer of the Hebrews could say that Christ put away sin, then I would say the debate is decided. And I would remind Mr. St. Genes that in 1999, and by the way, I think you make those tapes available on your website?

We make them available as well. You can get them from whichever site you'd like to get them. That was a longer debate than we have this evening, and it covered a wider range of topics. So I'd invite you to listen to it.

Take the time to do so. But in 1999, Mr. St. Genes said in that debate that when we go to Mass, we are reminded of our sins. We are reminded of our sins. And yet the writer of the Hebrews says he has been manifested to do what?

Put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Now let me point out in just a few moments I have left how important this is. He continues to say, and inasmuch as it appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also having been offered once to bear the sins of many, he will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin to those who eagerly await him.

Now, keeping in mind this important central issue and the assertion that going to Mass reminds us of our sins, look at Hebrews chapter 10. For the law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year make perfect those who draw near.

Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had the consciousness of sins? But look at this next verse, very important. But in those sacrifices, plural, there is a reminder of sins year by year.

A reminder. The old sacrifices by their being repetitious is a reminder of sin. That was the old covenant. And if Mass reminds us of our sins, then that is also descriptive of the Roman Catholic perspective.

But what do we have? What do we have? Look at verses 10 through 14 of chapter 10. By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time.

See the repetitive idea? Time after time, the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins, but he, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, not one sacrifice to make sins removable through sacramental penances and forgivenesses, but 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 made a footstool for his feet.

He is not being made present upon altars all across the world. He has sat down at the right hand of God, for by one offering, he has perfected for all time. Notice those words, perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

That is the work that he accomplishes. That is what makes him the Savior. And that is why that term reminder that is used in Hebrews chapter 10, those repetitive sacrifices are a reminder of sins. This is just that the mass reminds us.

We are reminded of our sins. And yet when we go to Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians about the supper of the Lord, what does he tell us? What are the words? Do this in remembrance of what? Me, not of your sins, but of one who bears your sins.

In the old covenant, an anamnesis, a reminder of sin. There must be something more that's going to come. There must be something greater than the blood of goats and calves. In the new covenant, we don't look forward to some hoped for thing.

We don't hope that we do enough things so that we can obtain justification. And we hope we don't do enough penances so that we can work off the temporal punishments of sins. And we hope that we don't commit a mortal sin right before we die and be lost.