The Mass (White vs Pacwa)

The Debate Topic and the Catholic Case from Hebrews

The debate this evening is the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Affirming will be Father Pacwa, denying will be Reverend White.

As I was preparing and praying before we began, I felt very strongly that I wanted to submit my own mind, my own will, my heart to God's Word, to what God has written. I don't want to come up with some clever system, but rather make sure that what I say is conformed to what God reveals.

That's the teaching of the Church and that's the way I'd like to live. And when I look at this doctrine of the Eucharist, I have to begin with the letter to the Hebrews. The message of this letter is so clear that Jesus Christ is understood as we see in chapter 4, verse 14.

That we have a great high priest that has passed into the heavens. Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our profession. That this is Christ who has gone into the heavens as our one true high priest.

As we see in chapter 9, Christ having come as a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and far more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is not of this building. And neither has he come with the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered into it once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

And that the blood of bulls and goats is of some use, as it says also in chapter 9, verse 14, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, how much more shall he purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

And for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant. That it is the blood of Christ offered once and for all, where in which Jesus is not only the high priest who does the offering, but he is the one true victim that is offered.

That his blood is the sacrifice for our sins. And also it is his blood that makes him the mediator of the new covenant. And that he doesn't have to enter into that heavenly sanctuary often, as the Old Testament high priest had to go into the Old Testament tabernacle many times, but rather he goes into it once and for all.

And this sacrifice is the basis for understanding the Eucharist. The Eucharist that I celebrate and that every priest has celebrated since our Lord offered the Last Supper. Now tonight we want to deal with two issues.

That the Mass is truly a sacrifice, representing the sacrifice of Christ. And secondly, that it really is Christ. He is truly present here. Both of these things are necessary for understanding each other.

The Last Supper, the New Covenant, and Sacrificial Language

To see this, let's take a look at what our Lord taught at the Last Supper. There are four times in which the Last Supper is described. Three times in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, and once in St. Paul, 1 Corinthians chapter 11.

And in the descriptions of the institution of the Eucharist, we see a number of key words chosen by our Lord, who is the Word of God, and He uses the Old Testament word to show that this is a sacrifice.

His one true sacrifice. First of all, He calls this the New Covenant in My Blood. He says that in Luke 22 verse 20, 1 Corinthians 11 verse 25, this cup is the New Covenant in My Blood. And slightly differently phrased in Mark 14, 24 and Matthew 26, 28, this is My Blood of the New Covenant.

Now, this should immediately remind us of what Jeremiah 31, verses 31 to 34 says, in which we are promised to have a New Covenant. The Old Covenant was not satisfactory. It could not save, and the Israelites did not keep it.

A new and eternal covenant in our hearts is what the Prophet promises. But it's not just this prophecy from Jeremiah that we look at. We also see that by mentioning this Blood of the New Covenant, or that this cup is the New Covenant in My Blood, this immediately reminds us of Exodus chapter 24, verses 1 through 11, in which the Old Covenant was ratified by the shedding of the blood of bulls by representatives of the tribes of Israel.

We see especially in chapter 24 of Exodus, verse 8, where it says, Behold the blood of the covenant which Yahweh has made with you concerning all these words, or commandments. So here the blood of the covenant in the Old Testament refers to some bulls who had their blood poured out at the altar and also sprinkled on the people, and that this is the blood of the Old Covenant.

Hebrews 9, which I also just quoted, refers to this, saying that this was the first covenant. The covenant that took place in Exodus 24 is the first covenant. It says that in Hebrews 9, verse 15. And that Moses sprinkled all the people with the blood, saying that this is the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined on you.

So there's a sharing in the blood as well. And also in the same passage, which I read already, it says that in 9 .15 of Hebrews, that Jesus is called the Mediator of the New Covenant because death has occurred for the redemption of the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

So those who have been called may receive the eternal inheritance. So Christ mediates this New Covenant in blood. In Hebrews 9 .16, it says also that this has to be because for wherever there is a covenant, there is necessity of a death to be offered for the making of the covenant.

You don't make covenants without death. That's necessary. Sacrifice is essential. And Christ defines the Eucharist by saying that this is the cup, excuse me, this cup is the New Covenant in my blood. We also see something similar to the Last Supper and to the Eucharist in Exodus 24, verses 9 -11.

Where we see that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel went up to the mountain. And they saw God, just like the apostles at the Last Supper saw God incarnate. But they were with Him, representing the new Israel.

And not only did they see a vision of God in the book of Exodus, but God did not destroy them. And they ate and they drank with Him. So that we see that this covenant is ratified by the shedding of blood in the Old Testament, and then by sharing the meal together.

So also in the New Covenant. The shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, the New Passover, also is celebrated with a meal, of eating and drinking with His disciples. And we'll see more of what Jesus has to say about what this food is.

Certainly, any Jew who heard Jesus speaking these words about this covenant and His blood, would immediately have been reminded, not only the Jeremiah passage, but also the Exodus 24 passage. A second term that is very important in the institution of the Eucharist is the word, do, poieta.

It appears in all of the institutions of the Eucharist. And the obvious thing is, this means to perform. Do this, and repeat it. The Eucharist is not something to be done once and for all, and just do it one time at the Last Supper.

But the apostles are told to repeat this, perform this, do it. And that's the way certainly the early church understood it, and anybody who would read it would have understood the word to be repeat,.

Or do and perform.

But also we have to remember that Jesus Christ is a Jew, and that He's quoted in the Old Testament again. And we see in the Old Testament that the word do has a very specific meaning. Asah, in Hebrew, is translated by the Greek word poiein, both meaning to do.

And in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, as well as in the Hebrew Old Testament, the word do means to offer sacrifice, when the context has enough indication that a sacrifice is present. Let me give you some examples.

In Exodus 29, verse 39, it says, The first lamb you will do in the morning, and the second you will do in the evening. Now what do you mean, do? Ta-aseh. Clearly it means you will sacrifice it. So the word do, twice in that passage, means to sacrifice.

The same thing is true in chapter 9, verse 7 of Leviticus, where it says, Approach the altar and do your sin offering and your holocaust, and it will atone for you. But again, the word do, your sin offering and your holocaust, means obviously to sacrifice it.

And also in Psalm 66, verse 15, it says, I will do the cattle with goats. Clearly though, in that context, it means I will sacrifice. The word do, frequently in the Old Testament, not only in these passages, but others as well, means to offer sacrifice when sacrificial terminology or situation is present.

And if there are enough sacrificial elements present in the institution of the Eucharist, in the Last Supper, then the word do also means specifically to sacrifice. The third key word is memorial, because Jesus says, Do this in a memorial or as a memorial of me.

Now what does that mean? First of all, let's take a look at how the word anamnesis, the word remembrance, is used in the Old Testament, its Old Testament background. We see that it appears five times in the Old Testament.

First, Leviticus chapter 24, verse 7, in which it translates a memorial sacrifice. You will put pure frankincense upon each roll of bread, that it may be for the bread as a memorial, an asherah. In Numbers chapter 10, verse 10, On your day of rejoicing, on your appointed feasts, and at the beginning of your month, you will sound the trumpets on your holocausts, o 'er and over your sacrifices of peace offerings, and they shall become for you as a memorial, an anamnesis, in the Greek translation, the same word used by the Lord in the Last Supper.

Psalm 38 and Psalm 70 both have, at the beginning of the psalm, that these are psalms of David to cause an anamnesis, that is, to cause a remembrance. And commentators, modern and ancient Jewish commentators both, understand Psalm 38 and Psalm 70 to be psalms sung during the offering of the sacrifices mentioned in Numbers 10 and Leviticus 24.

Also in those psalm headings, it refers to singing these psalms during a sacrificial offering, the azkarah. And there's only one other use, and that's in the Book of Wisdom, chapter 16, verse 6. Here it simply means to remember something for human beings, as a memento for humans.

It has no context in sacrifice. But that's the only place in the Old Testament that an anamnesis does not have a context of sacrifice. There's one other use of this word, only one other use of this word in the New Testament, besides when Jesus uses it at the Last Supper.

And where is that? In Hebrews chapter 10, verse 3. It says,. But in them, that is, sacrifices, mentioned in verse 1 of Hebrews 10, there is a remembrance, an anamnesis, of sins yearly. Once again, it's used in the context of a sacrifice.

It's a technical term in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, in Hebrews 10, for sacrifice. Five out of six uses of this term in the Bible in Greek are for sacrificial terms. And in the context of the word do, clearly it has that sense of sacrifice.

The fourth key term is the word poured out, sometimes translated as shed, in Phenomenon. We also see that in the Greek Old Testament it appears 12 times in the context of sacrifice. In a few of these, for instance, 1 Samuel chapter 7, verse 6, Sirach 50, verse 15, Isaiah 57, verse 6, we see that it's pouring out a libation of water or of wine.

But in the other nine uses, it's referred to shedding blood or pouring out. It's better translated, as most commentators agree, it's better as pouring out blood as part of the sacrificial ceremony. When they weren't just getting rid of the blood in some practical way, but they're pouring out the blood at the base of the altar as part of the ritual of the sacrifice.

So in summary, what we see is that the words covenant in the blood of Christ,.

The word do,.

The word as a memorial, and the word poured out, all chosen very carefully by our blessed Lord Jesus, have in their context the meaning of sacrifice, and that they all are leading us to the sacrificial situation.

Is that all that we see in regard to sacrifice? Of course not. First of all, bread and wine are elements chosen by Jesus Christ, and that these are associated with sacrifice. The Jews offered up sacrifices of fine flour and drink offerings of wine in the temple.

That was still going on at the time of Christ. And we cannot forget that there was bread and wine offered as a sacrifice to God Most High by Melchizedek. And remember that Melchizedek is the model for the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Jesus does not have the priesthood of the Levites, but the priesthood of Melchizedek, where he offered as a sacrifice bread and wine. So that the terminology at the institution of the Eucharist is sacrificial terminology, and we also see that the elements are elements of sacrifice.

And though Jesus did not explicitly use the word, that is the word sacrifice, he certainly used the terms and a method of administration that indicates sacrifice. And I must confess that I'm grateful to the Protestant theologian, Darwell Stone, for the insights into those observations.

Paul, Communion, and the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians

Now there are two texts in St. Paul that speak of the Eucharist. That is 1 Corinthians 10, verses 16 -21, and 1 Corinthians 11, verses 23 and following. Let's take a look at 1 Corinthians 10, verses 16 -21.

Here St. Paul is dealing with a problem in the Corinthian community. And what is the duty of the Christian in regard to eating food that was offered to idols? First of all, what does he say here? In this text, Paul treats the Eucharist as having a position in the Christian religion that in some respects is clearly parallel to sacrifices offered to demons.

We see that in chapter 10, verses 19 -21. He compares them to. Also, we see in verse 18, where he says, Do you see the Israel according to the flesh? That is, the Jews of his day. The ones who eat the sacrifices are sharers of the altar.

The sacrifices of the Jews are also in some respects compared to the Eucharist in the Christian community. So Paul is comparing and having some parallel place in life the sacrifices of pagans and the sacrifices of Jews.

And therefore, by deduction, one should imply that these are also understood by Paul as sacrifices. Besides the fact that he also will have used the institution narrative using the sacrificial terms Jesus used.

Third, we also see in 1 Corinthians 10 that St. Paul regards the Eucharist as a means of fellowship in the body and the blood of Christ. That the cup of blessing, he says in chapter 10, verse 16, the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion, a koinonia, a sharing of the blood of Christ?

And the bread which we break, is it not a koinonia, a communion of the blood of Christ? Paul sees the Eucharist as a way for us to have this sharing, this koinonia, this communion with Jesus Christ, because it is him.

Fourthly, St. Paul sees that partaking in the Eucharist is the basis for Christian unity, a theme that the fathers of the church will also pick up. In chapter 10, verse 17, he says,. Because we the many are one bread, one body, because we all partake of the one bread.

So we form one bread because we partake of the one bread. And this fits St. Paul's understanding of baptism as it does of the Eucharist. Because we share in one baptism, we become members of the one body of Christ.

And as members of the one body of Christ, we belong to him, in chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians. Here, also the Eucharist, because it's a sharing in the one Christ, it's a sharing in his body, a sharing in his blood, it gives us the basis for our unity.

And fifthly, St. Paul also sees that there are two crucial moments in this rite of the Eucharist, namely, breaking the bread and blessing the cup, and secondly, receiving this bread and this cup by the community and by the communicant.

The second text in St. Paul is 1 Corinthians 11, 23 -30. I already mentioned the institution of the Blessed Sacrament, of the Eucharist, in that section. But the other problem he's dealing with, the reason he addresses the Eucharist, is because there's factionalism.

The community has divided itself up, and that there are disorders at the Eucharist. Now, what are some of the other things Paul says besides the institution narrative? First, in chapter 11, verse 23, St. Paul says, He received from the Lord what I delivered to the Corinthians.

This is a tradition that he has. Apparently, we have no evidence he received this tradition, and when he saw Christ in his vision, on the way to Damascus, but he received this, apparently, from other Christians, from other members of the community, from the apostles and the others who converted him, but he says, I received it from the Lord.

He accounts what he received from the community as that which he received from the Lord, and he passed on that tradition about the Eucharist. Secondly, how does St. Paul interpret the Eucharist? We see this in chapter 11, verse 26.

Four, as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. That the Eucharist has its meaning, its interpretation by Paul as being a proclamation of the death of the Lord, and as we saw in Hebrews, that death of Christ is a sacrifice.

Therefore, if this is a proclamation of the death of Christ, then it also must be a sacrifice, and share in that. Thirdly, just as in chapter 10, verse 16 to 21, Paul again teaches that the Eucharist is a means of fellowship in Christ's body and blood.

We have fellowship with Christ in the Eucharist. He says in verse 27 of chapter 11,. So whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

But let a person test himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For the one who eats and drinks judgment to himself eats and drinks without discerning the body. St. Paul requires us to understand and discern the presence of the body of Christ and of his blood, because we are drinking his blood here and eating his body.

John 6, Belief, Flesh, and Blood

Now, the last major text on the Eucharist is John chapter 6. In John chapter 6, we see two major issues going on. First of all, this section clearly addresses the issue of belief. Jesus our Lord, in John chapter 6, is addressing a call to us to believe in Him, believe in Him who gives life.

And we must have that faith. If we do not have that faith, we do not have life. We cannot have eternal life without that faith. But along with the four summonses to belief in Him, we also are summoned to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

And not only does He tell us that He will give His body and His blood, His flesh and His blood to us to drink and to eat, but He also teaches that unless we eat His flesh, and drink His blood, we cannot have life everlasting.

So we are called both to believe and to receive. And to believe what it is that we receive from Christ. Now I'll stop here. There are more passages in the New Testament that deal with the Eucharist, but we'll come back to those in the next section.

Trent, Transubstantiation, and the Mass as Propitiatory Sacrifice

Again, it's good to be with you again this evening to address these very important issues this evening, the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. I would like to begin with a statement from John O 'Brien in his popular work, The Faith of Millions.

He wrote the following,. When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.

It is a power greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim. 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 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. The priest is and should be another Christ.". Now, O 'Brien's comments are highly offensive to the Protestants for many reasons, some of which we certainly will not be able to deal with this evening, but what of his allegation that Christ is offered as a sacrifice upon the Roman altar?

What of his statement that Christ, the omnipotent God, bows His head in, quote, humble obedience to the priest's command, end quote, and comes down from heaven to be offered again and again in sacrifice?

Is O 'Brien simply going beyond what is really taught by Roman Catholicism? I do not believe that he is. The Council of Trent meant it met in its 13th session in October of 1551 and promulgated a decree concerning, quote, the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, end quote, at the end of the decree with a list of canons providing anathemas for those who would reject the council's teaching.

As these canons often provide a short, succinct definition of Roman teaching, we shall list some of these canons so that the position taken by Trent on the issue of the Eucharist, specifically in this section, the concept of transubstantiation, can be clearly understood.

I quote canon one. 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 in a sign or figure or force, let him be anathema.

Canon two. If anyone says 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 of 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.

And canon number eight. If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only, and not also sacramentally, and really let him be anathema. Now eleven years later, in 1562, the 22nd session of the Council of Trent was held.

This time the decree promulgated was entitled Doctrine Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass. The second chapter of this decree is highly important to our subject this evening, therefore I will quote it in full.

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 draw an eye to God, we obtain mercy and find grace and seasonable aid.

For, appeased by the sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penitence, and pardons even the gravest crimes and sins. For the victim is one 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 who depart in Christ, but not yet fully purified.

Again, a list of canons are to be found at the end of the decree, and some of them read as follows. Canon 1. If anyone says in the mass, a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that to be offered is nothing else, and Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says by those words, do this for a reminiscence of me, Christ did not institute the apostles' priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his own body and blood, let him be anathema.

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

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

Two more.

Canon 5.

If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints, and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, let him be anathema. And Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema.

Closed quote. Now, the full scope of Roman position, I believe, must be understood. In my book, The Fatal Flaw, on page 58, I summarize Trent's teachings on the Eucharist as follows. Number one, Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the sacrament of the Eucharist, following the words of consecration.

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

Number three, since Christ is said to be really present in the Eucharist, the elements themselves, following consecration, are worthy of worship, or Latria. Number four, the sacrifice of the mass is properly called propitiatory, and it brings about pardon of sin.

Number five,.

In the institution of the mass, the Lord's Supper, Christ offered his own body and blood to the Father in the signs of the bread and wine, and in so doing, ordained the apostles as priests of the New Testament.

Number six,.

The sacrifice of the mass is properly offered for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, not only for the living, but for the dead as well. And number seven, finally, anyone who denies the truthfulness of any of these proclamations is under the anathema of God.

Now, given the time constraints this evening, if anyone believes that Vatican II changed any of this theology, I'd refer you to the Fatal Flaw, pages 59 through 68, where it is demonstrated that this is not the case at all.

Now, I wish to direct our thinking this evening to the two major aspects of the Roman doctrine that are rejected by Protestants. First, the concept that the Eucharist involves the entire teaching of transubstantiation.

Now, no one denies the ability of God to do such a thing if he revealed that he desired to do so. No one denies that Christ is truly present in the Lord's Supper just as he is truly present with us this evening.

He promised to be with his church until the end of the age, and we believe that he is with us. We accept that Christ truly encounters us in the Lord's Supper and that this is a special time of communion with the Lord.

But Christ can be with us, truly and really, without the entire concept of transubstantiation. The belief has no solid foundation in the word of God and therefore cannot be said to hold the conscience of the Christian captive.

The second major aspect of the Roman doctrine of the Eucharist is that of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, a sacrifice relevant to sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that when Christ is offered upon the Roman altar by the priest, this is a truly propitiatory sacrifice, for it is the same sacrifice as that of the cross.

However, at the same time, it must be pointed out that Rome admits that the effects of this supposedly propitiatory sacrifice are limited. Masses can be said for the same intention with no full guarantee that that intention will be fully accomplished.

Dr. Ludwig Ott wrote,. The sacrifice of the Mass affects the remission of the temporal punishments for sin, which still remain after the forgiveness of the guilt of sins and of the eternal punishment, not merely immediately by the conferring of the grace of penance, but also immediately, because the atonement of Jesus Christ is offered as a substitute for our works of atonement and for the sufferings of the poor souls.

The measurement of the punishments of sins remitted is proportional, in the case of the living, to the degree of perfection of their disposition. In the case of the suffering souls, the satisfactory operation of the sacrifice of the Mass is applied by way of intercession.

As they are in the state of grace and thus oppose no obstacle, theologians generally teach that at least part of their punishments for sins is infallibly remitted.". On the same page, the same doctor added,.

As a propitiatory and impetutory sacrifice, the sacrifice of the Mass possesses a finite external value, since the operations of propitiation and impetration refer to human beings, who as creatures can receive a finite act only.

This explains the practice of the Church of offering the holy sacrifice of the Mass frequently for the same intention.". Now, recall that this concept of a humanly limited effectiveness of the sacrifice of the Mass was mentioned by Trent above, where it made reference to those saints who leave this life, not yet fully purified.

In Roman Catholic theology, a person could attend a thousand Masses and yet leave this life not yet fully purified. Now, most Protestant rebuttals of the Roman doctrine of the Mass center on transubstantiation, and certainly this is understandable.

However, this evening, I shall approach the Roman doctrine from a different perspective. While I shall briefly, if time permits, make some comments regarding the principal passages used to defend transubstantiation, I will spend the majority of my time dealing with the Biblical doctrine of the Atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I shall seek to compare, and most importantly for you this evening, contrast the Biblical understanding of the work of Christ with what I assert to be the terribly flawed understanding presented by Roman Catholicism in its doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice.

As transubstantiation is hardly necessary if the Mass is not a sacrifice, I shall be making what might be called an end run in addressing the issue in this way. But by so doing, I hope to make the point that the Roman doctrine of the Mass strikes at the very heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that is the work of Jesus Christ.

And because of this, it is truly the fatal flaw of Roman Catholic theology. The Mass is the same sacrifice as Calvary. Romanism clearly denies that the Mass is another sacrifice, or that their belief in the truly propitiatory nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice takes away from the finished work of Christ on Calvary.

We admit the assertion. However, I wish to assert and prove from God-inspired Scripture that the Roman position cannot be maintained, that the work of Christ is badly misrepresented in the Mass in Roman understanding, and that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross differs substantially from that of the supposed sacrifice of the Mass.

It differs so greatly, in fact, that no one can possibly claim that the sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrifice of the Cross are, in fact, one in the same. Now, before returning to the Word of God, I wish to reiterate once again the key elements of the Roman teaching.

In the Mass, Christ is physically present after the words of consecration. This is absolutely necessary for the Mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice, that is, a sacrifice that brings about forgiveness of sins.

The effectiveness of the Mass, however, is dependent upon the disposition of the individual receiving it. Therefore, the effectiveness of this propitiatory sacrifice is dependent upon human action, human will, human disposition.

Christ's death, then, it seems, purchased redemption, but did not actually accomplish it. It is applied, according to Catholicism, in the Mass. Vatican II said, Now, is this the case? Does the Bible teach this?

I would like to invite you, in the brief time that I have left, to turn with me to the Word of God and look at this very issue. What I'm going to do, initially, is take us back to the passage that Dr. Paco began with, and that is to the book of Hebrews.

I would like to spend most of our time here, and then, as the Lord gives us time this evening, spend more time on other passages in the Scripture that define for us Christ's death as being our soul and only propitiation, that Christ's death, in and of itself, brings about reconciliation to God, that it is substitutionary, it's made in behalf of all those, the elect, and that it brings about full and complete redemption.

But, first of all, in the brief time we have, I would like to start off with Hebrews 7, verses 24 -26. Hebrews 7, verses 24 -26. Here, the writer of Hebrews, referring to these former priests, in verse 23, the former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing on in their office.