Hebrews 10 and the Mass (Selected Scriptures)

Please turn your Bibles to the book of Hebrews, chapter 10, book of Hebrews, chapter 10, and we're going to read together beginning at verse 11, and we're going to read through the end of verse 18,

Hebrews 10, verse 11 through 18. 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 a footstool for his feet.

For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies 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 on their mind I will write them. He then says, and their sins and their lawless deeds

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

Let's pray together before we begin. Our Father, we pray for the mercy of being able to understand your

Word, that you by your Spirit would grant us illumination and understanding into the things that we're going to be looking at this morning.

We pray that you would help us to compare error with truth and that your Word may be our guide in doing so, that you would recall to our minds all that your

Word says about these issues and that you would be glorified through the teaching, through what is said, and through the meditation of our hearts, here we pray in Christ's name, amen.

This message today is a little bit different than what I normally do in the normal course of preaching. If you've been here for any number of weeks, you notice that we open up a passage of Scripture, we read the passage, explain the passage, and we kind of work our way through a book.

Today is a little bit different because I'm briefly deviating from that pattern for the purpose of comparing what we have learned in the book of Hebrews with the

Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass, and not because I'm here to pick on Roman Catholics or anybody who's had a

Roman Catholic background. The purpose of this is to address an issue that is obviously in the front of us, the

Roman Catholic Mass, in the light of Scripture, because as I've been working my way through Hebrews 10, a number of people have said, now in going through all of this, you're going to tell us how this deals with the issue of what

Roman Catholics teach regarding Mass, right? As if you can see, obviously, that what we're learning in the book of Hebrews cannot be squared with Roman Catholic doctrine.

So a few different folks have asked that question, and I have wanted to wait until this point, until we have reached the end of what

Hebrews has to say about that. We let the author of Hebrews and the text of Scripture have its say, we go through the entire argument, see what the author is saying, and now we can compare that with the false doctrine of the

Roman Catholic Mass. And in doing it that way, it allows us to be able to evaluate what we're going to be evaluating in light of everything that we have studied thus far.

So rather than, even though I've had plenty of opportunities to sort of inject some of this teaching in this and deal with it up until now,

I wanted to let Hebrews have his say, not that his name was Hebrews, whoever wrote Hebrews, the book of Hebrews have its say on this issue, and then we can compare that to Scripture, compare

Scripture with this doctrine of the Roman Catholic Mass. And let me offer a couple words of a disclaimer here.

I have a lot of ground to cover, so I'm going to jump right into this without too much more introductory stuff, though I do have a little bit more introductory stuff.

A word of disclaimer, I know that there are people here who grew up in a Roman Catholic Church, I know there are people here who were baptized in a

Roman Catholic Church, I know there are people here who probably have family members, friends, the little old lady next door that right now probably are attending a

Catholic Church, there are people here who have had great experiences in a Roman Catholic Church, people here who have had horrible experiences in a

Roman Catholic Church, people here who are excited and they think that I'm just up here to just grind an axe on the

Roman Catholic Church, that is not my goal at all. My only goal up here today is to ask what does the truth of Scripture say and how does that comport with what

Roman Catholicism teaches regarding the issue of the priesthood and the sacrifice and the Mass, and the sacrifice of the

Mass, this is all something that we have been discussing in recent weeks and months as we've been going through the book of Hebrews.

So I want you to know that I'm not up here to grind an axe, I have no personal, I take no personal umbrage against Rome, Roman Catholicism, I have not been abused in a

Roman Catholic Church, I do not have a bad history with a Roman Catholic Church, I was baptized as an infant in the

Roman Catholic Church, and other than that the only experience I've had in a Roman Catholic Church is observing some of the beautiful architecture in Vienna, attending a

Mass at a funeral that I eventually walked out of because I felt it was so blasphemous, and reading Scripture at my grandfather's funeral which is a

Roman Catholic Church and I did that in such a way as to make sure that they got the Gospel. So we are here to address theological issues, not personal issues, and I'm not here to just grind your axe or to grind my axe,

I want you to understand that the goal of this is simply a theological evaluation and if you are new to what the

Roman Catholic Church teaches concerning the Mass then this will be something of an eye -opener for you.

Now the Mass or the sacrifice of the Mass as Rome would call it is not the only place in Roman Catholic theology regarding what they do on a

Sunday morning that directly violates what we read in the book of Hebrews. They also have an entire priesthood, the nature of the sacrifice is not the only thing that Rome gets wrong, they also get wrong the view of the priesthood.

Jesus was appointed a priest according to the order of Melchizedek and the argument of Scripture in the book of Hebrews is that that entire

Old Testament priesthood, all the priests of Aaron and the priesthood initiated under Aaron under the Old Covenant, all of that is gone away with, it's all obsolete, it's part of an old system, it's done, it's gone, it's no longer functioning at all.

God is not working through that at all and we would recognize as Protestants that what has replaced that is a higher and better priesthood, one high priest who never dies, who always lives to make intercession for those who are

His. One high priest who offered one sacrifice once for all time that has perfected all those for whom that sacrifice was offered.

That is what we would say the book of Hebrews teaches. We would not say that that old priesthood has been entirely replaced by thousands of other priests who continue to function in a liturgy that is very similar to that old liturgy and in observing the

Roman Catholic system you cannot help but come to the conclusion that they would have to argue that all of that old priesthood with all of those old priests and the rituals, the forms, the liturgy, the ceremonies and all of that has been scrapped but then entirely replaced by something that is a whole lot like that, is it not?

With the liturgy and the functions and the ceremonies and the sacerdotalism and all of the other stuff that goes along with that.

We would say that that new covenant has entirely scrapped the old. They would say that under the new covenant we have a mirror image of the old with a priesthood with thousands of priests.

Now they have to have a priesthood and a priesthood is a necessity in the Roman Catholic system because of their view of the mass.

They would say that the very nature of a priest is to offer a sacrifice and if you have, by their view, a sacrifice taking place on the mass, at the mass, then you have to have a priest who is initiated to offer that sacrifice.

So by their theology the priesthood is essential to offering the sacrifice of the mass. Now what is the mass?

We would say that this is communion or that this is the Lord's Supper. They would call it the

Eucharist or they would call it the mass. Now regardless of the, we would both say that what we're celebrating,

Catholics and Protestants would say that what we're celebrating is what Jesus instituted on the night he was betrayed when he said, this is my body which is broken for you.

Take this and eat it and do it in remembrance of me. This is my blood which is the blood of the new covenant. Do this often as you drink it in remembrance of me.

We would both appeal to the same passages of scripture and as we would say that our observance of the Lord's Supper is the way of fulfilling that continual observance, they would say that that continual observance is manifested in the mass or what they call the

Eucharist. Now regardless of whether you call it the mass or the Eucharist or whether even Roman Catholics would call it communion or the

Lord's Supper, they would say that there have to be, it has to be three elements for this to be effective.

It has to incorporate three different aspects or three different things and here they are. Number one, transubstantiation.

Number two, sacrifice. And number three, sacerdotalism. I say sacerdotalism just because a big word makes me sound smart.

I'll explain that here in just a moment. Transubstantiation or you could call it trans, I was going to say you could call it substantiation if you wanted to but it's transubstantiation, it's transubstantiation, sacrifice and sacerdotalism.

Those are the three elements that must be in place for the mass to be effective according to Roman Catholic theology. What is transubstantiation?

Here is a, well let me define these first of all. The transubstantiation,

I'm going to define that here in just a second. The sacrifice, obviously the Roman Catholic Church would believe that the mass or the observance of communion in the

Eucharist is a sacrifice and I'm going to describe that. I'm going to show you what it is that they teach regarding that here in just a moment.

And the third thing, sacerdotalism, is a reference to the idea that there has to be a functioning priest in order for what the priest does to be effective.

So I can't just step into a Roman Catholic Church and do a mass. I can't walk up to the altar and swing the incense and ring the bells and do the thing and say the magic words over it.

I have to be an ordained priest and I have to have the authority in order for what I do there at that altar to have the effect that it is intended to have.

That's this sacerdotalism. It's the belief that an ordained priest has to do this and in the doing of it by an ordained priest, it actually does all of these things that we're about to describe.

So number one, what is transubstantiation? Transubstantiation, this differs substantially from what we as Protestants would view, how we as Protestants would view communion.

Transubstantiation, quote, is the doctrine that as the administering priest consecrates the elements, an actual metaphysical change takes place.

The substance of the bread and wine, what they actually are, is changed into Christ's flesh and blood respectively.

Note that what is changed is the substance, not the accidents. I'll explain that in just a moment. Thus the bread retains the shape, texture, and taste of bread.

A chemical analysis would tell us that it's still bread, but what it essentially is has been changed.

The whole of Christ is fully present within each of the particles of the host, and all who participate in the

Lord's Supper, or the Holy Eucharist as it is termed, literally take the physical body and blood into themselves, close quote.

Now that definition is from Millard Erickson's book, Christian Theology, describes there what transubstantiation is.

Now it is the belief that when the priest who is an ordained priest with that authority, when he consecrates the host, gives them over, that there is a substantive, that the substance is changed of the bread and the wine into the literal body and the literal blood of the

Lord Jesus Christ. Now once that is done, you might walk up and eat the bread and drink the wine, and you would say, at taste, it feels, it smells a lot like bread and wine.

You would be correct, it does. And you might even put it under a microscope and say, that looks a lot like bread and wine.

You could do a chemical analysis and say that strikingly similar to bread and wine, and you would be right in all of that.

But Rome would teach that even though it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's actually a dog.

That even though it tastes like bread, smells like bread, feels like bread, that it's actually the literal physical body and blood of the

Lord Jesus Christ. That there is a transition that happens, a change, when those elements are consecrated, it is a change of substance, not of appearance, not of taste, and not of chemical analysis.

It's a change of what it really truly is has changed. Even though it appears, and according to our senses, nothing has changed, they would say that in substance, in what it really is, its essence, has actually changed.

That's the doctrine of transubstantiation. Now here it is according to Rome. The Council of Trent, Session 13,

Chapter 4, titled On Transubstantiation, here is what Rome says. Now before I quoted you, Millard Erickson, who is a

Christian theologian. Here it is straight from the Church of Rome. Quote, All of that was preamble, but here's the money paragraph.

Now what are they saying? In the consecration of those items, they truly become the real body and the real blood of our

Lord Jesus Christ. Now, remember that they believe this to be the real body and the real blood of the

Lord Jesus Christ, even though it doesn't taste that way or smell that way, etc. That's what it really is in its essence. And they would believe that the whole,

W -H -O -L -E, the whole or entirety of Christ is present in the elements that are there, in the blood and in the body, that the whole, the totality of Christ is present there.

What would be the logical conclusion of such teaching? You would have to logically conclude that if Christ is literally, physically, and spiritually presently there, that those elements should be worshipped, right?

That those elements should be worshipped because if that is God physically in your presence, those elements should be worshipped.

You say, Jim, now you're taking it too far. The Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 5.

Here is what Rome says, Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the

Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of Latria. Let me pause there for just a moment.

Latria, in Roman Catholic theology, is the highest worship reserved for God and God alone. I mean, you can worship icons and saints and chunks of the cross and the tooth of the

Virgin Mary. You can worship all of that thing. That's not Latria. That's just, that's a lower form of worship and reverence.

The worship of Latria is the worship that is reserved for God and Him alone, okay? Let me go back for just a moment.

It has ever been the firm belief in the Church of God, wrong paragraph, it has ever received in the

Catholic Church that we may render, the faithful may render in veneration the worship of Latria, which is due to the true

God, to this most holy sacrament. For not therefore it is the less to be adored on this account that it was instituted by Christ the

Lord in order to be received. For we believe the same God to be present therein, of whom the Eternal Father, when introducing

Him to the world, says, And let all the angels of God adore Him, whom the Magi, falling down, adored, who in fineness the

Scripture testifies was adored by the apostles in Galilee. And what are they saying? That when

God sent the Son into the world the first time, He said to the angels, Let all the angels of God worship

Him, the Son. We saw that in Hebrews chapter 1, did we not? We've seen that in a number of places in Scripture, in the

Psalms, what Hebrews chapter 1 quotes from that. And since He was there in the flesh and was worshiped by the

Magi, and since in the flesh He was worshiped by the apostles, if He is present before you in the elements of communion in the flesh, what does

He deserve? Worship. The worship that is due to the one and true God.

Rome says in a Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 5, that true veneration, the veneration, the worship of Latria, due to God alone, can rightly be given to these elements by the faithful because the

Father has commanded us to worship them. If you believe that Christ comes into the world at that point, just as He did in the room of the

Virgin Mary, He comes into the world at that point through the consecrating act of the priest.

If that is your belief, then Christ is there physically in your presence. Those elements are worthy of worship.

Now according to the Roman Catholic Church, if you deny any of these doctrines, you are damned.

If you deny any of what I've just said to you here, you are damned. Anathema. Council of Trent, session 13, canons 1, 5, 6, and 8, if you want to look them up.

According to Rome, if you deny that the elements are really the body and blood of Christ, you're damned. If you deny that the elements are worthy of worship that is due to God, you are damned.

If you deny that when you actually eat the communion, you eat the body and blood of Christ, you are damned.

And if you deny that the sacrifice of the mass is a real sacrifice, you are damned.

Now, at this point, people usually like to say, you know, Jim, you're being awfully harsh and awfully critical and you're saying all of these really stern things.

Like President Trump's tweets, it makes my tummy hurt, I don't feel good about it, you're just being a meanie.

I'm not being a meanie and that's not my intention in doing this. Listen, I'm not the one throwing around damnations like they're hard candy at a 4th of July parade.

That's Rome that does that. If you deny any of this, you are damned. If you deny this, you're damned. If you deny that, you're damned.

Well, it just so happens that I would deny everything that I've just read to you that comes from the Roman Catholic Church. I would deny these things.

And Rome would say that I am damned and judged because I deny these doctrines. And on this point,

I would say that the Roman Catholic Church and we as Protestants would have to agree. We hold this in common, the belief that on this issue, one of us has it right and one of us has it wrong.

And the one that has it wrong is damned. I would agree with them on that. This is an essential issue.

This is a big issue. We're talking about the nature of Christ's atonement, what it does, what makes it effective, its power, its ability to save, what is accomplished on the cross.

Those are central and serious issues. So that's the description of transubstantiation, but that's the first element that you have to have for the mass to be effective is this belief and this affirmation that these elements are actually, truly, genuinely changed into the real, literal, actual body and blood of the

Lord Jesus Christ. The second element then follows naturally from the first and that is that the mass is an actual sacrifice.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1365, it reads thus, quote, "'Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the

Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the

Eucharist is manifested in the very words of its instruction. Quote, "'This is my body which is given to you, and this is the cup which is poured out for you in the new covenant in my blood,' close quote.

In the Eucharist, Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,' close quote."

Notice that they're affirming that it's not a different body and a different blood, but the very blood, the very same blood shed at Calvary 2 ,000 years ago is present sacrificially in the mass.

And they call the Holy Eucharist the sacrifice of the mass. Paragraph 1055 of the

Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the Holy Eucharist the, quote, "'the holy sacrifice of the

Eucharist.' It's the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist." And they say that by it, quote, "'the church commends the dead to God's mercy,' close quote."

I'm going to read you here in a moment a quote where they say that this sacrifice of the mass is to take place for the living and for the dead.

Because remember in Catholic theology, when you die here, you don't go directly to heaven, you go to purgatory.

And once you're in purgatory, you have to burn off all the sins that never got forgiven or atoned for here in this world.

And so in the burning off of those sins, once those are all burned off, then you get to go into heaven. While somebody back home is doing the mass on your behalf, it's taking years off of your sentence in purgatory.

And so therefore, this sacrifice of the mass is done not just for the living, but also for the dead in Roman Catholic theology.

Paragraph 1068 of the Catholic Church Catechism, quote, "'For it is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the

Eucharist, that the work of our redemption is accomplished,' period, close quote." Do you hear that? It is in the liturgy, especially the divine sacrifice of the

Eucharist, that the work of our redemption is accomplished. Where do we believe that the work of our redemption was accomplished?

At communion? When that is done? Or at the cross? It's in the cross. See how different, see how irreconcilable these two views are?

We're not talking about just shades of meaning between two different views of the Lord's Supper. We're talking about radically and entirely different theologies.

Catholic Church Catechism, paragraph 1366, "'The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it represents or makes present the sacrifice of the cross.'"

One last one, Roman Catholic Catechism, paragraph 1367, quote, "'The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the

Eucharist are one single sacrifice. The victim is one and the same, the same now offers through the ministry of priests who then offered himself on the cross, only the manner of the offering is different.'"

Listen, that's the same sacrifice. He's now offering it on a table at the hands of a priest, the very same sacrifice he offered on the cross.

Quoting again, "'And since in this divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the mass, the same

Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner, this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.'"

This sacrifice of the mass is truly propitiatory. What does propitiatory mean?

It means it satisfies the wrath of God concerning sin. This sacrifice of the mass actually satisfies divine justice on behalf of those for whom the mass is performed.

It's truly propitiatory. It forgives sins. It erases sin debt.

In other words, if this is not done, there is sins not forgiven and sin debt not atoned for.

That's the Roman Catholic view. The Catholic Encyclopedia topic,

Sacrifice of the Mass, says, "'The church intends the mass to be regarded as a true and proper sacrifice.'"

So it has to be transubstantiatory, transubstantiation.

They also believe it to be a sacrifice. And by the way, if you deny this, you are damned.

Council of Trent, Session 12, Canon 3 says this, "'If anyone saith,' by the way, I saith this, "'If anyone saith that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving, or that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, and not a propitiatory sacrifice, or that it profits him only who receives, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, pains, satisfaction, and other necessities, let it be anathema.'"

In other words, if you deny that it is propitiatory, if you deny that it is a sacrifice, if you deny that it should be offered for the living and the dead for the atonement of their sins, you are damned for denying those things.

This is, this sacrifice of the mass, by the way, happens constantly in Roman Catholic churches, in worship services, it's going on somewhere right now, it's going on somewhere.

You sit here, somewhere in this world, probably hundreds and thousands of places in this world, this sacrifice is being done.

This goes on constantly at funerals, at weddings, in church services, in morning services throughout the week, in special high and holy days that the

Catholic Church honors. The sacrifice is made, they believe, of the body and the blood of Christ, they believe it to be propitiatory, they believe it to be done for sins, and they believe it to be the vehicle by which sins are atoned for and forgiven.

Without the sacrifice of the mass, they would say, the sins are not forgiven.

So they believe it is a real sacrifice, and it is the same sacrifice, the same body, and the same blood of the

Lord Jesus Christ, offered perpetually and continually for all of eternity, and that the work of the priest is to re -present the same sacrifice over and over again to the people, and that by doing this over and over again, sins are being forgiven, atonement is being made, and divine justice is being satisfied.

That's Roman Catholic teaching regarding the mass. What does the Scriptures teach? I'm going to read you a few verses from Hebrews.

With all of that in the background of your mind, I want you to listen to what Hebrews says. Hebrews 1, verse 3, when

He, that is Christ, had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high, past tense.

He made purification of sins, finished. And so He sat down.

There's no more work to be done. Hebrews 7, verse 27, He, that is

Christ, does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this

He did when He once for all offered up Himself. Hebrews 9, verse 12, not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood

He entered the holy place, once for all, having obtained, past tense, eternal redemption.

Hebrews 9, verse 26, otherwise Christ 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 put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Hebrews 9, verse 28, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation, without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await

Him. Hebrews 10, verse 10, and by this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all.

Hebrews 10, verse 12, but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.

Hebrews 10, verse 14, for by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

That's glorious, what I just read to you. What is the author of Hebrews repeating?

Every conceivable way that this sacrifice is a one -time historical act, a one -time sacrifice, that it is not repeated day after day after day, just like those

Old Testament priests who daily did the service of that worship. It's not repeated daily, it's a one -time sacrifice, and it is a one -time sacrifice that has forever accomplished what was intended to be accomplished.

If the goal of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was the forgiveness of the sins of His people, listen, He has perfected forever those who are sanctified through that one offering that He made once and for all, and when

He was finished, having made purification for sins, He sat down. No more sacrifice, no more offering, no more re -presenting the same offering over and over again, no more priesthood to do this work over and over again continually.

The work was done one time, once for all, it is a completed work, and He sat down. And the fact that He sat down is itself an evidence of its completion.

Now the argument through the book of Hebrews has been that the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant had all of those priests always doing that work.

And Rome would say, yeah, all of those priests always doing that work has been replaced by all of these priests doing very similar work.

And we'd have to say, how is that better under the New Covenant? We just have still thousands of priests doing still the work perpetually, continually, day after day all over the world?

How is that better? The argument of Hebrews says that the one sacrifice has forever ended all other sacrifices.

Where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins, a completed work.

That's what Hebrews would say. The Roman Catholic Church would say, well, yeah, but that one sacrifice now continues to be re -presented over and over again perpetually, just like the animal sacrifices, but a little bit different.

I say to you, how is that better? How is the repetition of the sacrifice any better than the repetition of the animal sacrifices?

See, the argument of the author of Hebrews all the way through is that this New Covenant, what we have received is better. The argument of the

Roman Catholic Church is that the New Covenant is just a mirror image of the Old Covenant. All of these new things have just replaced those old things, and it continues to go on just like it did under the

Old Covenant. And Hebrews says, no, no more priesthood, no more tabernacle, no more sacrifices, no more offerings, no more liturgy, no more robes, investments, none of that stuff.

This completed work has been done in Christ, and it is sufficient. So the contrast is clear, and we've observed it through Hebrews that this is contrary, obviously what the

Scriptures teach in Hebrews, is contrary to what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about the sacrifice of Christ. And listen, there is no common ground between what

Rome teaches regarding the sacrifice of Christ and what we would believe and what Scripture teaches concerning the sacrifice of Christ.

There's no common ground in these things. It's either once, or it's daily. It's either once, or it's continual.

It either accomplished it, or it needs something else to keep it going and to accomplish the work that Christ started on the cross.

There is no meeting of the minds between these two views, what Scripture teaches and what Rome teaches.

Now you say, well, how is it then that they would deal with Romans 10, because that's a big question, right? I mean, Catholics added a whole bunch of books to the

Bible in the 1500s, but they didn't take out the book of Hebrews. So when a Roman Catholic reads through the book of Hebrews, they read the same verses that I just read to you.

How does a Roman Catholic get around that? How do they argue and deal with, how do they deal with these passages in Hebrews 10, which seemed to be to us so clear?

Hebrews 10, 18 says, where there's forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin. How does the

Roman Catholic Church deal with Hebrews 10? Here are the arguments that they make, there are three of them. First, they would say that the mass is not another sacrifice, it is the same sacrifice.

Now you heard this in one of the passages that I read from the catechism or from the Council of Trent here earlier, that this is one and the same sacrifice.

It's the same blood. It's the same body. So you say, well, so you're just offering up Jesus all over on the altar again.

That's a whole nother sacrifice. Hebrews says that there's only been one sacrifice. And Rome would say, I agree with you, there's only been one sacrifice.

What we're doing at the mass is simply representing the same sacrifice that was made back then. So it's one sacrifice that is continually presented and represented always and forever all the way through church history.

It's not another sacrifice and it's not a re -sacrifice. They would say you're misrepresenting us by saying we're re -sacrificing

Christ or we're offering up another sacrifice because according to Rome, it's the one and the same sacrifice.

It's not a different body. It's not different blood. It's the same body and the same blood that is then represented.

So they would say what Christ did on the cross, he's just offering and it's the same offering. It's the same sacrifice.

We're just representing it. We're just sort of opening up the doors of heaven, looking at it all the time. We're just constantly making it new, bringing it up, pulling it out of eternity and making it real and present in front of us.

It's all the same sacrifice that has happened for all of these years. That would be their argument. They would say that Christ offers himself to the father on our behalf in the mass and that Christ himself is the one who is continually through the hands of the priest offering always to God his sacrifice.

Always one sacrifice. It's not done for them. It was done in the sense that there was a historical event that happened but that that offering is always and continually being made to the father.

Second, they would say that the sacrifice of Christ is offered continually in heaven. They would argue that it is an eternal sacrifice.

An eternal sacrifice. And this is the language that Rome uses to describe the sacrifice of Christ. Since Christ is a priest forever, and here's where the redefinition of terms becomes obvious.

Since Christ is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, they would say that the nature of the priesthood is to always offer sacrifices.

Therefore, if Christ is eternally a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, he must eternally be offering the sacrifice.

And since Christ is eternally offering the sacrifice, which started at the cross and continues on today, the high priest today just simply opens up the windows of heaven as it were and represents that same sacrifice which

Christ himself is continually offering in heaven to the father. That he, Christ, is offering the same sacrifice eternally.

And they would say that Calvary is the perpetual, the sacrifice of Calvary is perpetually offered to the father by Christ.

And thus it's not a new sacrifice. It's not a re -sacrifice. It's not another sacrifice. It's not a different sacrifice.

And that is why they can say that the mass is propitiatory. Because the sacrifice on the cross was propitiatory, it forgave sins.

Since the mass is the very same sacrifice just represented all over again, it has to have the same qualities of what took place on Calvary.

So if Calvary is propitiatory, then so must also be the representation of the very same sacrifice.

Does that make sense? That's how they would get around it. I hope that makes sense. I mean, it doesn't really make sense. But you know,

I hope that what I'm presenting to you as what doesn't make sense at least makes sense that I'm presenting to you what doesn't make sense.

So here's the answer to that. That explanation of the one -time or the continual nature of the sacrifice of Christ really does not help their case at all.

And I'll give you a couple of reasons why. Number one, Christ's intercession is not sacrifice. See, Rome confuses intercession with sacrifice.

We believe that he is always continually, eternally interceding for us, his people. And they would say, well, that intercession must involve sacrifice since the nature of a priest is to offer sacrifice.

So if his intercession is eternal, then the sacrifice must be eternal.

They confuse, they blend the ideas of intercession and sacrifice so that if one is eternal, the other one also has to be eternal.

According to the Catholic Answers website, under the question, is the mass a sacrifice, you would read this, quote, Protestants have no qualms accepting the perfect and efficacious nature of Christ's sacrifice, but invite them to consider its eternal aspect.

Jesus is eternally a priest, and a priest's very nature is to offer sacrifice. In the case of Christ, the eternal sacrifice that he offers is himself, close quote.

Well, it is not, Scripture does not teach that the sacrifice of Christ is eternal, meaning continually ongoing.

Scripture teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was a one -time event that has eternal consequences.

Do you understand the difference between those two? It's a one -time event that has eternal consequences.

He has obtained eternal redemption, Hebrews 9 .26. By that one sacrifice, he has perfected, for how long, forever, those who are sanctified.

So the sacrifice of Christ is not an eternal ongoing sacrifice, it is a one -time sacrifice that has produced eternal fruit.

It has produced an eternal state for those of us who are in Christ and for whom that sacrifice was made.

So he's not continuing his sacrificial work, and he's not continuing to offer that sacrifice to the

Father. Having offered that one sacrifice, what he continues to do is to intercede and pray for those who are his, those for whom that sacrifice was made.

So in terms of Christ, he has done, and the arguments of Hebrews makes that so crystal clear and it is so glorious, that that work, having once been done, has accomplished what it was intended to accomplish.

So in describing the Roman Catholic Mass, I have described a view of the sacrifice of Christ that it is continually at odds with the scriptural teaching regarding the sacrifice of Christ.

These two things cannot be reconciled, these two things cannot be brought together at all. Rome's view of the sacrifice of Christ is completely and always, and in every way, at odds with what scripture teaches concerning that.

And I would actually say that it is a blasphemous teaching. Here are the differences between Rome's view of the sacrifice and our view of the sacrifice.

First of all, the nature of it. Is the sacrifice represented at every communion? Is the sacrifice continually being made and presented in heaven, perpetually and for all of eternity?

Does that sacrifice need to be represented and represented, I should say, by a priest in order for it to be effective?

Does that sacrificial work still continue? And must it continue in order for it to be effective? Or, was it a one -time, once -for -all sacrifice?

Second, the nature of His intercession. Does the intercession of Christ in His interceding for us involve the continual offering of Himself to God?

Or, is His intercession a perfecting work where He prays for those on whose behalf

He has accomplished eternal redemption? And third, the effectiveness of His sacrifice. Does the effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice require a participation in the

Mass? If you've never attended a Mass, never had a Mass done for you, is that Mass necessary for you to partake of the eternal benefits that Christ's death secured?

And if you've never gone through a Mass, then do you have a whole heaping of sins that you need to have atoned and paid for by the sacrifice of the

Mass at the hands of the priest? Is His work only applied when we do some religious act?

Is the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church necessary for our salvation? Is it in the liturgy and the

Mass that eternal redemption is accomplished? Or was that accomplished on the cross? The doctrine of Mass, I believe, is an unbiblical and high -handed act of blasphemy that diminishes the work of Christ and detracts from His glory and actually compromises the scriptural teaching on the effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice.

And only because I have a little bit of time, I'm going to include this at no extra charge.

I don't have anything on this in my notes. If you are...

What I've been presenting is a Reformed view of the sacrifice of Christ and comparing that to the

Roman Catholic view of the sacrifice of Christ. The Reformed view, as we talked about a couple of weeks ago, is the idea that in the sacrifice of Christ, it was not made for all people, but it saves all for whom it was intended.

That the power of the cross, the power of that sacrifice is unlimited. It accomplishes what it was intended to do, and it does not need our approval or our recognition to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.

Now the Reformed view is entirely different from the Arminian view, which would say that Jesus died for all people, and what

He really needs is our approval to make the cross effective for us. He needs our repentance. He needs our faith.

He needs us to make a decision, to pray a prayer, to come to Him, to repent, and then to believe. And when we do that, then that becomes effective for us.

Then the cross has its power toward us. What it needs is some work of man. I just want to point out that Roman Catholics and Arminians do not disagree at all on the nature of the atonement concerning its power.

The Arminian and the Roman Catholic would both agree that Christ died for all people, but that His sacrifice needs some human work or some human action in order to make it effective for those for whom it was made.

The Roman Catholic would say that the mass is necessary at the hands of the priest. The priest must do these things, and then the cross has its power.

The Arminian would say what is necessary is for the human to repent, to believe, and to embrace

Christ, and when he does that, then the cross has its power. Arminians and Roman Catholics do not disagree on the power of the atonement.

They both agree on that. What they disagree on is what human activity or action or work is necessary to give the cross its power.

So my Arminian friends, and if you are here, just recognize that your view of the atonement is very similar to Roman Catholic view concerning its power.

What you disagree with Rome on is just what human activity is necessary to give the cross its power.

For those who have a Reformed view of the atonement of Christ, I would say that the atonement of Christ has perfected forever all those for whom it was made, and that that one -time act back then has had its intended effect, and every last person for whom that sacrifice was made will be saved, will be sanctified, and will be secured everlastingly to the glory of God.

Fully powerful, fully able to save all those for whom it was intended. It needs nothing from us, no activity of a priest or of a sinner, to give it its power.

In fact, the repentance and faith of the sinner is the fruit of that atonement. It is the result of that atonement.

It is not what actuates the atonement. The Roman Catholic Mass teaches that something else is necessary, namely the work of a priest in representing that sacrifice in order that we may partake of it and have our sins forgiven.

They deny that the death of Christ in and of itself without any human agency is sufficient to satisfy the wrath of God.

They deny that. They deny that the death of Christ in and of itself without any human agency or any human work is sufficient to satisfy the wrath of God for sin.

Jesus, they would say, needs a human priest to intercede and to change bread into his body and wine into blood for our sins to be forgiven.

And that, I believe, is a high -handed act, a statement, blasphemy. I attended the

Mass of a man who one time attended our church, and I'm not going to name his name because it's irrelevant, but his mother had died and had the funeral.

She was a Roman Catholic, and so the funeral's at the local Catholic church, and I attended that Mass, or sorry,

I attended the funeral, and after it had gone on for, I don't know, two, three days or something like that, we were sitting there, and they finally got around to the

Mass, and I was hungry, and hours had gone by, and I was wasting away, and finally got to the

Mass, and I thought, okay, this has got to be close to the end of it. Oh, no, it was only the beginning. The Mass goes on for a couple more days before it's completed, but about halfway through,

I was there trying to observe it, trying to be respectful, but about halfway through of what

I was seeing and observing and the way that they were performing it, I said, this is blasphemy. I cannot. I cannot endure this, and it was grievous to me to see this person who was a friend of mine go up and partake of the

Mass and participate in it, and that action, that was a dividing and defining moment in terms of our perspective on truth and what makes something true and whether something is glorifying to God and honoring to God and if we are able to even participate in things like that.

I don't understand how any Christian with even a small amount of discernment and love for the truth of Scripture can participate in a

Mass and believe that. It is why I believe that when somebody is saved in the Roman Catholic Church, not because of what

Rome teaches, but in spite of it, that God the Holy Spirit will eventually bring them out of that. He will eventually sanctify them out of it.

Eventually they have to come to a point where they see what they read in Scripture, they compare that to what they see in a

Mass or what is going on in the veneration of saints and icons and idols and images, etc.,

and they have to say this is dishonoring to God. They have to say this is blasphemy. The truth of Scripture will open their eyes and their hearts to that.

For you as a Christian believer, I would say to you that you are trusting in the finished work of the

Lord Jesus Christ, a one -time sacrifice that has forever accomplished your redemption. All your sins were laid upon Him.

You can rest in that. That one -time sacrifice is sufficient. It is all you need for your faith, for your repentance, your forgiveness, your justification, your righteousness, your sanctification, your holiness, your security, your obedience to God's Word and for eternal glory.

It's all you need. Everything is provided for you in that one -time sacrifice. Having offered and made purification for sins,

He sat down. There was no more representing of that sacrifice for Him to do.

If you are a sinner and you've never repented of your sin or trusted Christ for salvation, then I would just simply say to you that you need a payment for your sin, your blasphemy, your adultery, your idolatry, your greed, your selfishness, your lying, your stealing, your high -handed acts of blasphemy.

You need a payment for your sins and your payment does not come at the hands of a priest at an altar.

Your payment does not come in the conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Your payment does not come through the continual re -offering of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The payment for your sin was made on Calvary. And if you will repent and believe, you will find that there is sufficient power in the atonement to save, sanctify, and secure you everlastingly.

But you must look to Christ and to Christ alone and not to a priest or to a liturgy or to forms and rituals and symbols and smells and bells and incense and liturgy.

You must look to Christ and Christ alone. Turn from your sin, repent, believe upon Jesus Christ, trusting that the sacrifice, the one -time sacrifice that He has made is sufficient to pay the price for your sins.

And He will forgive you and He will cleanse you of your sin and He will impute to you His own righteousness at the moment of your faith and trust.

For your salvation comes not by your works of righteousness and not by anything that anybody does on your behalf in this world, but because of what

Christ has done on your behalf one time on the cross when He offered Himself once for all and by that sacrifice

He perfected forever those who are sanctified. Let's pray. Father, we thank

You for such a great mercy of salvation in Your Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. We can and do rest in a finished work because He has completed all that is necessary for our salvation.

Our eternal glory, our faith, our repentance, our security, our growth and holiness, all of this secured for us because of what

Christ has done. So we thank You for the power of that sacrifice, for the glory of what

You have done. We thank You for Christ who alone has done everything necessary to redeem us. So we look to Him and we are reminded again of how gracious You are, how loving

You are, and how full of power You are to save sinners such as us. We deserve none of the blessings and benefits which

You have bestowed upon us, including our repentance and our faith, which are not human activities or human works, they are gifts of divine grace.

And so we thank You for giving those gifts to us and for turning our hearts to Christ. Cause us to rest upon Him and Him alone and to trust in Your Word and what it says concerning salvation that has been accomplished on our behalf.

Thank You that He has obtained eternal redemption forever for those for whom He has died. We rejoice in that and we thank