Mass Deception
by Timothy F.
Kauffman
If any of our readers happen to be
subscribers to a cable network, they may have occasionally
flipped past Mother Angelica's Eternal Word Television
Network, or EWTN , a globally broadcast Roman
Catholic cable channel. Among the many regularly featured
Roman Catholic programs is one that we would invite
our readership to view: the Daily Mass which airs
from Our Lady of the Angels Monastery in Birmingham
four times daily during the week. Though we do not
recommend a regular viewing of the subject matter,
we think this segment is worth seeing at least once.
It portrays for us--in the most graphic way possible--our
reasons for rejecting the Roman Catholic Mass sacrifice.
Before we go any further, we wish
to explain that our use of the term "sacrifice"
regarding the Mass is a deliberate one for the Mass
is truly a sacrifice in which a "victim"
is "immolated" on an altar. It has all the
makings of a sacrifice and thus it is properly so-called
by the Roman Catholic Church:
"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 offering is different.'" (1994 Catechism
of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1367)
"And forasmuch as, in this
divine sacrifice which is celebrated in
the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated
in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself
in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the
holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly
propitiatory ... For the Lord, appeased
by the oblation thereof, ...forgives even heinous
crimes and sins." (Council of Trent, Session
22, Chapter 2)
One need not view the Daily Mass
very long before being struck with the base familiarity
of the setting used for this sacrifice. The altar
is of course in plain view with a tabernacle and candlesticks
nearby, while the priest stands at the ready to offer
this sacrifice of appeasement to God. Two angels,
cast in bronze, find themselves forever prostrating
themselves to the right and to the left of the altar,
presumably to worship the presence of the divinity
of Christ in the bread to be offered. Between these
two cherubims, the priest will perform his rites by
which he thinks and teaches that sins can be, to some
degree, removed or at least put off.
Now, to the eye unaided by the revelation
of the light of Christ, this situation seems perfectly
arranged for the appeasement of the wrath of an angry
God, and speaks through images of the grace bestowed
to us in Christ Jesus. The carnal man finds nothing
at all objectionable either about the setting itself
or about the ritual which is to be performed there.
Christians, however, find the whole performance rather
troubling. We shall explain why.
To begin, we cannot help but notice
how accurately this sanctuary has been designed to
reflect the ministrations of a Levitical priest in
the Old Testament. Right down to the cherubims of
the glory on either side of what Rome thinks to be
the mercy seat: the altar of immolation of the victim
to be sacrificed. The whole scene is resonant of that
design which Moses received from God Himself:
"And thou shalt make two cherubims
of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in
the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub
on the one end, and the other cherub on the other
end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims
on the two ends thereof. And the cherubims shall
stretch forth their wings on high, covering the
mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall
look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall
the faces of the cherubims be" (Exodus 25:18-20).
The setting of the Roman Mass therefore
gives the appearance of being Biblical, but it is
not.
The first doctrine to which the Mass
sacrifice draws attention is that of transubstantiation:
the Roman Catholic teaching that the bread of the
altar contains in itself the soul and divinity of
Jesus Christ, as well as His blood, and, of course,
His body. It is in this manner that the whole Christ,
body, blood, soul and divinity is to be immolated
to propitiate the wrath of God. To immolate means
to sacrifice, kill or destroy. This is what the priest
is alleged to do when he serves at the altar to offer
the transubstantiated wafer sacrifice to God. Though
we fully deny the Roman dogma of transubstantiation,
we will let it stand for now in order to show the
greater futility of the Romish Mass which is professed
to satisfy the wrath of God and forgive sin.
We note from the beginning that the
Roman priest finds himself bound by the same limitations
which prevented the Levitical priests of the Old Testament
from offering sacrifices which could take away sins.
For example, the Roman priest performs at the altar
a sacrifice with someone else's blood. Also, the priest
is obviously a man who is not Christ. Likewise, the
Roman priest freely confesses that he presents the
sacrifice to God for his own sins and for
those of the people. Even if the doctrine of transubstantiation
were true (and it is not) all three of these problems
would render the Mass ineffective as a sacrifice for
sins.
The epistle to the Hebrews, when
comparing the Old Covenant with the New Covenant,
makes much of the fact that under the old priestly
caste, the sacrifices offered in the temple were of
no effect in removing sin, "as the high priest
enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own"
(Hebrews 9:25b). Literally, when someone besides Christ
acts as a priestly mediator, his mediation is of no
effect since he does not offer his own blood, even
if the blood is perfect blood . When the Roman
Catholic priest asserts that he transubstantiates
the bread into Christ's blood to be offered by him
to God, he in the same instant tacitly confesses that
his sacrifice accomplishes nothing at all.
The Scriptures also state that Christ,
being the sole mediator of the New Covenant, shares
the altar with no man. He alone ministers at the sacrificial
altar of the New Covenant:
"For the one of whom these
things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from
which no one has ever served at the altar "
(Hebrews 7:13)
We remind the reader that this was
written after Christ's death, and therefore, rules
out any New Testament priestly caste apart from the
priesthood of all believers. No other man has ever
served at Christ's altar, not before--and certainly
not since--his ministrations on the cross. For the
Roman Catholic priest to assert that he serves at
the same altar as Christ is to confess openly that
he ministers at the altar of a different Christ than
the one spoken of in the Bible.
To continue, the effectiveness of
the sacrifice is equally dependent on two criteria:
1) the purity of the priest who ministers, and 2)
the purity of the blood being offered. Christ was
Himself the perfect High Priest and the perfect sacrifice:
"For it was fitting that we
should have such a high priest, holy, blameless,
unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above
the heavens." (Hebrews 7:26)
There is no Roman Catholic priest
who would presume to be sinless. Therefore, there
is no Roman priest who has ever offered a Mass sacrifice
that was capable of removing sin. The scriptures rule
out the efficacy of the ministrations of any priest
who has to offer a sacrifice for his own sins:
"He has no need, like those
high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for
his own sins and then for those of the people; he
did this once for all when he offered up himself."
(Hebrews 7:27)
Of course, the Roman religion has
a ready answer for these objections. To solve the
problem of someone who is not Christ offering "Christ's
blood," and having another man, a sinful man,
minister at Christ's altar, the priest is said to
be acting "in the person of Christ," or
in persona Christi (1994 Catechism
, paragraph 1548). That is, though we see with our
eyes of flesh a non-Christ offering the non-blood
of Christ, we are expected with eyes of faith instead
to see Christ Himself offering His own blood-wafer
to the Father.
If it were true (and it is not) that
the bread changes into Christ's blood and the priest
somehow acts in the person of Christ, this would seem
to quell any of the above objections both to the manner
in which the Mass sacrifice is offered, and the efficacy
of the sacrifice itself. However, Rome's solution,
instead of solving the problem, actually adds two
more.
First, the method of the Mass sacrifice
has Christ offering Himself in an earthly temple which,
despite its remarkable similarity to Moses' design
specifications in Exodus 25, is still only a copy
of it, which itself was merely a copy of the Heavenly
one. Second, this present picture of the Roman priest
offering "Christ's blood" "in the person
of Christ," still has him doing so repeatedly.
That is, it has Christ immolating himself (suffering)
over and over again. He is presumed to offer Himself
on a sacrificial altar every time any Roman priest
offers a Mass sacrifice anywhere in the world until
the end of time.
If any would ask why we should take
exception to the Mass on these grounds, we answer
that the Scriptures speak plainly against it. To say
that Christ repeatedly offers His own blood (i.e.,
His sufferings) to the Father over and over again
in a temple made by hands is to say that He does precisely
what the Scriptures say he does not :
"For Christ has entered, not
into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the
true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear
in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it
to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest
enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his
own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly
since the foundation of the world" (Hebrews
9:24-26a).
But Rome's error at this point again
multiplies itself two-fold. First, Rome has Christ
offering His sacrifice to God in a way that the Scriptures
say He did not do it, and second, Rome has Christ
offering His sacrifice to God in a way that the Scriptures
say cannot remove sin. Christ "appeared once
to put away sin," says the Word. Rome has Him
appearing many times (through the Roman priest) in
an earthly temple made with hands, and not putting
away sin at all. In fact, Rome has Him suffering (being
immolated) over and over again until the end of the
world. Rome's Christ (who is a "not-Christ"
and is no savior at all) must offer his sacrifice
repeatedly in the Mass because it is understood that
the Mass does not "put away sin" at all.
If it did, once would be enough, but Rome's work of
"putting away sins" is never done. And since
it does not "put away sin" through one offering,
an infinite number of Masses will never be enough
either.
But even here Rome has its explanation.
Although from the plain view of it we see the sacrifice
being offering in an earthly temple, Rome actually
holds that the sacrifice is only performed
on earth (in the earthly sanctuary), but is actually
offered in Heaven (in the Heavenly sanctuary).
We will here cite the part of the Liturgy of the Mass
where Rome has the sacrifice of Christ's blood being
actually offered on the altar in Heaven. We ask the
reader to pay special attention to the identity of
the person that Rome has offering the sacrifice on
the Heavenly altar:
"We offer to you, God of glory
and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice...
Look with favor on these offerings and accept them...
Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take
this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then,
as we receive from this altar the sacred body and
blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace
and blessing."(Sunday Missal Prayerbook
and Hymnal for 1994, pg. 27. See also the 1994
Catechism , paragraph 1383)
Perhaps after a perusal of this citation
from the liturgy of the Mass, the reader can see our
concern. While Rome thinks it has solved the problem
of Christ's sacrifice being offered in a temple made
with hands, a mere copy of the true one, it has added
yet another problem. The offering of Christ is now
pictured to be presented on an altar in Heaven (as
the Scriptures say it was), but now it is an angel
who is offering the sacrifice. Thus, the sacrifice
of the Mass introduces yet another error in that it
is now an angel offering blood that is not his own
to God repeatedly as a sacrifice for sins.
Thus, Rome compounds her error.
But these are not all of Rome's problems
regarding the Mass sacrifice. So confident are the
Scriptures that Christ's sacrifice of Himself, properly
offered in a Heavenly temple, is effective in removing
sin, that their clear testimony is that He did so
only once, for all time, and now lives forever. And
because our Priest offered a sacrifice which was so
thoroughly effective, He does not need to continue
to offer that same sacrifice over and over again.
He can now rest and sit down at His Father's right
hand without having to worry about whether another
priest will need to come to finish His ministrations.
He knows that all priests who preceded Him could not
remove sin because they came and ministered and died.
Their mortality was their weakness, and this is why
they were many in number and needed successors. Christ
knows that there was no need of numerous priests to
follow after Him, for their weakness, too, would be
their mortality, rendering them incapable of removing
sin. Christ, however, was effective in the ministrations
of the sacrifice because He, being perfect, lives
forever and now makes intercession for the elect as
the permanent and final occupant of that
High Priestly role. He knows that Rome's priesthood
is no priesthood at all because it attempts to undo
all that He has done:
"This makes Jesus the surety
of a better covenant. The former priests were many
in number, because they were prevented by death
from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood
permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently
he is able for all time to save those who draw near
to God through him, since he always lives to make
intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:22-25).
This passage makes it abundantly
clear that Christ's priestly work is effective precisely
because He needs no other priests to finish or carry
on His work. But this passage also states something
else. The mark of a sacrificial system that cannot
secure eternal redemption is the continuation
of its sacrifices. The mark of a deficient
priesthood is the necessity of many in number
to perpetuate the inferior sacrificial system as each
inferior priest dies.
The news that Christ's sacrifice
has put away sins once and for all is marvelous news
to the believer, but Rome's priesthood cannot stand
the hearing of it. This Good News of Christ's High
Priestly ministry puts an end to everything that Rome's
sacrificial priesthood wants to carry on. No worse
news can fall on the ears of a Roman priest than this:
Christ's sacrifice has put away sins
once and for all. But the Christian Hebrews to
whom the epistle was written, among whom were no doubt
some of the Levitical tribe of priests, understood
the significance of it. We have proof from the Scriptures
that the converted Levites, upon hearing the gospel,
did not rush to construct duplicates of their Levitical
altars in order to continue their ministrations. They
did not do what EWTN has done. And though
they might have recognized the setting of the sacrifice
were they to see EWTN 's daily Mass, they
would stare aghast in wonder that what had been so
close to disappearing in their time had been revived
illegitimately. Even in their day, such things were
passing away, and close to disappearing--even the
description of it was only by way of reminder
of something that had since passed out of practice
(Hebrews 8:13). We leave the reader with the following
passage to contemplate, and to wonder what the Christian
Hebrews would have thought if Mother Angelica could,
through EWTN , broadcast Rome's deception
to the first century Christian Church:
"Then verily the first covenant
had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly
sanctuary . For there was a tabernacle made;
the first, wherein was the candlestick ,
and the table , and the shewbread;
which is called the sanctuary. And after the second
veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of
all; ...And over it the cherubims of glory
shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot
now speak particularly. Now when these things were
thus ordained, the priests went always into the first
tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But
into the second went the high priest alone once every
year, not without blood, which he offered for himself,
and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this
signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was
not yet made manifest, while as the first
tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for
the time then present, in which were offered both
gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him
that did the service perfect, as pertaining to
the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks,
and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed
on them until the time of reformation" (Hebrews
9:1-10).
Unfortunately for Roman Catholics,
the words "the way into the holiest of all was
not yet made manifest," continues to be true
for them, and will remain their fetters of bondage
until they repent of error and confess that what they
now practice was intended to be merely a foreshadowing
of the gospel, and not the gospel itself. The Way
into the holiest of all has been revealed to us in
Christ, but the Roman Priestly caste would not have
us know this, "for ye shut up the kingdom of
heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves,
neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in"
(Matthew 23:13). |
