p. 7 | The “Sacrifice of the Mass” by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 21, 1915

The “Sacrifice of the Mass”

By C. M. S.

“Rome Never Changes”—No. 10

The “Sacrifice of the Mass”

(Continued)

It is claimed by the Roman Church that the mass is necessary to make effective the sacrifice on Calvary. That is an astonishing claim. If it were true, then there was no effective sacrifice for sin until the service of the mass was officially adopted by the Roman Church on Sept. 17, 1562. In that case the sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour was ineffective from the time he was crucified until the Council of Trent established the sacrifice of the mass. The question naturally arises, What of those who died believing in Christ and the efficacy of his sacrifice between the time of the crucifixion and the year 1562? Did they trust in an ineffective sacrifice? Was their faith vain?

That we may not be accused of making an unjust charge, let us examine the declaration of the Council of Trent in reference to that proposition:—

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 (canon 6), and that by means thereof this is effected that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,” sess. 22, chap. 11, authorized translations.

In the above we note the following claims: That in the “sacrifice of the mass” (in the wafer and the wine) “the same Christ is contained and immolated” that was offered “on the altar of the cross;” that the “sacrifice is truly propitiatory;” that through the mass “we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid;” that the Lord is “appeased by the oblation thereof;” and that because of and through the “sacrifice of the mass” the Lord “forgives even heinous crimes and sins.” In a work by Di Bruno, entitled “Catholic Belief,” it is stated that the purpose of the mass is “to apply practically to the soul the merits and graces of the sacrifice of the cross.” —Page 77.

If these claims are true, or if any one of them is true, then it must be admitted that the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary was inefficient without the “sacrifice of the mass.”

But we hold that the sacrifice on Calvary was efficient and sufficient, and against the above claims we set the plain declarations of the Inspired Word of God. The Council of Trent teaches that the same Christ who was offered on Calvary is offered again in the “sacrifice of the mass.” But the Inspired Word says:—

“He, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Heb. 10: 12.

That is a very plain and very specific denial and contradiction and refutation of the very first proposition of the Council of Trent regarding the mass. He offered but one sacrifice for sins, and offered that sacrifice forever, and “sat down.” It is most difficult to understand how a great council of ecclesiastics could make such a declaration in spite of such a scripture. But there stand the two facing each other, the claim of men and the Word of the Almighty. Each is a denial of the other; and surely we are excusable if we choose the declaration of God in preference to the declaration of men. That scripture alone overturns every feature of the mass and every claim made by the Roman Church concerning the mass.

Another scripture which teaches the same thing is found in Rom. 6:9, 10:—

“Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him. For the death that he died, he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God.”

If the declaration of the Council of Trent were true, Christ would die on every altar of every Roman Church in the world at every celebration of the mass. But he tells us in his Inspired Word, as above quoted, that “he died unto sin once.”

The Council of Trent teaches that the “sacrifice of the mass” is “truly propitiatory.” If that were true, the sacrifice on Calvary was unnecessary. The Bible claims for the sacrifice on Calvary that it was sufficient for the sins of the whole

world. The following scriptures make that plain:—

“He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” 1 John 2:2.

“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” 1 John 4:10.

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime.” Rom. 3:24, 25.

“Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.” Heb. 9:28.

The Word of God admits of no repetition of the sacrifice of Christ. Once done, it was done forever. It was sufficient for the sins of the whole world; and any repetition of it on the part of man is an intimation, nay, an open declaration, that Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended. When Rome claims that the “sacrifice of the mass” was necessary in order “to apply practically to the soul the merits and graces of the sacrifice of the cross,” she claims that the sacrifice of the cross was a dead and ineffective thing without her invention to make it complete. But, on the other hand, the Bible sets forth the sacrifice of Calvary as complete in itself and able to cleanse the believer from all sin.

More than that, in making so much of the mass, Rome does despite to the teachings of her own cardinals and canonized saints. For instance, let us consider the comment of Cardinal Cajetan on Heb. 9:18:—

The apostle’s argument is of this kind. From the fact that by the new law remission of sins is made by the one offering of Christ, he argues that no other offering for sins remains. For in such a case an injury would be done to the offering of Christ, as though it were insufficient.—“Pauli Epp.,” Paris edition, 1540, page 201.

This cardinal, in the same connection, adds: “It is one thing to repeat the passion of Christ, and another to repeat the commemoration and application of his passion.” He argued against considering the Eucharist as a sacrifice, declaring the Lord’s Supper to be what our Lord said it should be, a commemoration only of his sacrifice for the sins of the world. Cardinal Contarini affirms that “no Christian author, either ancient or modern, of any name, hath said that the mass is a sacrifice of the priest ex opere operantis, whereby, as if in rivalry of the sacrifice of Christ, the priest obtains for us remission of sins. Nay, Ambrose and Augustine affirm that in the mass there is a remembrance and commemoration of that one sacrifice which Christ offered.”—“De Sacram. Opp.,” page 359. So we find that Rome, in her teaching and practice concerning the mass, contradicts both the Bible and the teachings of her most authoritative Fathers.

The Council of Trent declares that the “sacrifice of the mass” is a propitiatory sacrifice, and in the same breath makes the declaration that that “sacrifice” is an “unbloody sacrifice.” A propitiatory sacrifice is one that makes propitiation for sin, removing from the sinner the condemnation which his sin had caused to rest upon him. But sin cannot be removed by an “unbloody sacrifice.” The Word declares, “Apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.” Heb. 9:22. We find the same thought in the Old Testament:—

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.” Lev. 17:11.

In declaring that the “unbloody” “sacrifice of the mass” is “propitiatory” in its nature, the Roman Church squarely contradicts both the Old and the New Testament. The shedding of blood in the sacrificial act proclaimed the giving of a sinless life to wash away the sins of the repentant sinner. In substituting a sacrifice without the shedding of blood for the one in which the blood of Christ was shed, or in adding the “sacrifice of the mass” to the sacrifice on Calvary to make that one complete, Rome declares God’s arrangement incomplete without the assistance of the human arrangement. She does what Cain did, when, instead of bringing a lamb to typify Christ and shedding its blood to typify his that was to be shed on Calvary, he brought of the fruit of the field—an arrangement of his own, which is perpetuated in the “sacrifice of the mass.” God rejected Cain’s “unbloody” offering, and accepted Abel’s offering, the blood of which was shed in the act of offering it. So Cain rose up and slew his brother, mingling Abel’s blood with that of his sacrifice. In that was typified the martyrdom of the millions of Christians who have gone to their death because of their faith, mingling their blood with that of the Lamb slain on Calvary. It is more than a coincidence that the church which substitutes the “unbloody sacrifice” for the true sacrifice, has shed the blood of many millions of conscientious human beings for worshiping God as they believed God required and rejecting the system of worship instituted and enforced by the church.

The Council of Trent declares that through the mass “we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid.” If that be so, what do we obtain through the sacrifice on Calvary? The mass purports to bring to us what the Calvary sacrifice is declared by the Word to bring to us. If it does, then Christ’s blood was shed in vain; and that we can never assent to.

The Council of Trent declares that God is “appeased” by the “sacrifice of the mass.” The idea of appeasing an angry god runs through all heathen religions. The sacrifice of Christ was made that the guilt of sin might be washed away from the repentant human soul. It brings man and his Maker together again—a sin-cleansed soul returned to the household of righteousness. There is nothing in that “unbloody sacrifice” to “appease” God. Instead, it must displease him by putting the human arrangement in place of the divine and making the divine seem insufficient without the support and help of the human.

The Council of Trent declares that through the “sacrifice of the mass” the Lord “forgives even heinous crimes and sins.” But, we ask, what then is there left for the sacrifice on Calvary to accomplish? The inference must be that without the mass “heinous crimes and sins” would not be forgiven. That would be a fearful charge to bring against the One who gave his life and shed his blood for the sins of “the whole world.” We read in 1 John 1:7 that “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” What does that leave for the mass to accomplish? We learn through Eph. 1:7 that we have “redemption through his blood.” Do we need something besides redemption which Christ’s sacrifice cannot accomplish for us, and only the mass can accomplish? We learn from Rev. 1:5 that he has “loosed us from our sins by his blood.” When that is done, what is there left for the mass to do? The “unbloody” mass is declared by the Council of Trent to be a true propitiatory sacrifice. But we learn from Rom. 3:25 that propitiation is accomplished “through faith, in his blood,” and nothing is said as to any propitiation coming through any kind of “unbloody” sacrifice. We learn by Rev. 7:14 that the faithful children of God are made “white in the blood of the Lamb.”

We certainly must conclude that, if the blood of Christ “cleanseth us from all sin;” if we have “redemption through his blood;” if he has “loosed us from our sins by his blood;” if we enter into the benefits of that propitiation which is accomplished “through faith, in his blood;” if we are made “white in the blood of the Lamb,”—we must conclude that the blood of Christ shed on Calvary has secured for us all we need, and that there is no place in the plan of salvation for the “unbloody sacrifice” of the mass. C. M. S. (To be concluded)