MASS IS NOT THE
SACRIFICE OF CALVARY
Index for this site
MASS, AN ATTEMPT TO KILL JESUS AGAIN?
GOD’S
WORD REFUTES THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
MASS, AN ATTEMPT TO KILL JESUS AGAIN?
The Mass is the Roman Catholic rite in which bread and wine are believed to be turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ on the altar by the priest. Jesus during his last supper said over bread, "Take and eat . This is my body given up for you." And over wine, "Take and drink. This is my blood shed for the pardon of sins. Do this in memory of me." The priest re-enacts this during Mass thus causing the alleged transformation of bread and wine into Jesus who is presumed to be God in human flesh.
The Catholic Church claims that the main thing about the Mass is that it is a sacrifice. The Church is clear that it does exactly what the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for our sins did - paid for them and atoned them and took them away. The Mass then is a sacrifice to God for sinners to pay for sin. It settles a debt to divine punitive justice.
The Church says that sacrifice is about paying homage and honour to God and indicating that all things are his to do with as he pleases. It says that it does not see the sacrifice as an attempt to get God's favour. The pagans only offered sacrifices to their gods not because they loved the gods but to get blessings from the gods. How mercenary! But nonetheless, the Catholic Church DOES try to use the Mass to manipulate God's will. The First Friday Masses are said to guarantee that you will get to Heaven no matter what you do for God will arrange it so that you will repent in the end. And you have Masses to St Rita of Cascia. The Church says no prayer to her is refused no matter how impossible it seems.
The Church is clear that the Mass is a real sacrifice and is in no way different (except in the way it looks) from the sacrifice Jesus made of himself on the cross. The Council of Trent infallibly decreed at Session 22: “If anyone says that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God or that that which is to be offered is nothing else but what Christ has given us to eat let him be accursed” – Canon 1.
“If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is merely a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or that it is a bare remembrance of the sacrifice completed on the cross but is not a propitiatory sacrifice or that it profits only him who receives and that it ought not to be offered on behalf of the living and the dead for sins, sufferings and satisfactions and other necessities let him be accursed” – Canon 3.
The Mass is supposed to be one
and the same sacrifice as the one Christ made when he became a human sacrifice
on the cross of
This is Catholic teaching, "God is outside time so the past present and future are all as one before him. To us they are separate for we live in time. God doesn’t have time, he has eternity or timelessness. The idea is that God is outside of time and lives in a present for which there is no past or future. So all time is present to him and he sees our past and present and future as if they are all happening at the one time. So the sacrifice of the cross is happening now for him though it happened in the past for us. "
Most Catholics say that the fact that the sacrifice of the cross is present in eternity meaning it is happening now in eternity before God is how the Mass is able to be a sacrifice (page 9-12, The Mass, Sacrifice and Sacrament).
Catholics say, “Protestants fail
to recognise that when God is outside time all events are present to him. They don’t realise that from the perspective
of eternity the sacrifice of Jesus is always present or happening, so to speak,
before God. Thus they believe like us
Catholics that this sacrifice can be present to us today. The Protestants can’t understand how the Mass
could be the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and not a new sacrifice when the
Bible says that Jesus died once for all (Hebrews 10), cannot die anymore
(Romans 6:9), cannot suffer anymore (Rev 21:4) but they should. The doctrine of some Protestants that we try
to kill Jesus all over again on the altar and that we repeat
But the Catholics show they don’t
believe this at all by saying that the sacrifice is made present at
How can you say the Mass is a real sacrifice when the sacrifice is present at all times and places anyway? Why not say bingo or a prayer meeting is a real sacrifice and is the sacrifice of the cross?
The explanation from the perspective of timelessness means there is nothing unique about the Mass for the sacrifice is happening all the time. Yet the Church proves it does not believe in the explanation at all when it teaches that the sacrifice of the cross becomes present when the priest turns the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Something sinister is being covered up which indicates that the Church seeks to hide the fact that she is trying to murder Jesus as the Jews did, during her Masses.
The explanation that all time is one with God and that all things happen at the one time for him who lives beyond the past and future is no good to the ordinary person and indeed to most priests. It is so abstract and strange to them that they will not absorb it. They will not understand it and suspect that it makes no sense. As far as they are concerned, Jesus really is being murdered on the altar afresh. A religion that has sound teaching but which is not able to reach the people with it as its too out of sync with their experience that time passes, is making idolaters of the people. The measure of good religion is not in its teaching or what it says people must do but in what it inspires people to do. Catholicism only leads to idolatry and those who like the Mass are really liking killing Jesus all over again. That is their intention.
The Catholics call their ministers who celebrate the Mass priests in view of the fact that they are ordained to make the sacrifice present and offer it to God. If the sacrifice is present already then there are no priests in the Church. A priest kills the sacrifice. If Catholic priests don't do that then they are not priests. The Bible never mentions ministerial priests in the New Testament Church. The research of Father Raymond Brown has shown that the concept of Christian ministerial priests is unbiblical. Also please read Papal Sin, Structures of Deceit, Garry Wills, Darton Longman and Todd, London, 2000 which has some material based on his findings. The Bible merely says that all believers are priests. The Bible says our sin killed Jesus on the cross and put him there. He had to suffer to atone for them and wipe them away. Thus we are all priests for as sinners we kill the victim. Catholic priests are not called priests in that sense at all.
The Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be unique if the explanation is accepted. It must be present to God all the time for when God can see the future all time must make one timeless “moment” in eternity and so we can say at any moment that it is present and offer it to God. This makes it blasphemous of those Catholics who say we must go to Mass to offer sacrifice for that is wrong. Yet they must say this for their Church infallibly teaches that going to a prayer service on Sunday does not fulfil the Sunday obligation to worship God by offering sacrifice. This can only be fulfilled by going to Mass. The Church does not oblige you to receive communion every Sunday but it obliges you to hear Mass for the Mass is the sacrifice of the cross. So it is the sacrifice that is most important.
Even if the sacrifice were perpetuated only and exclusively at Mass we could offer it to God without being in the church at all. So though Jesus sits in Heaven now his passion and death are still real to God and are still present to him.
Some say that when Mass is
celebrated, it is the same sacrifice as
There is only one
possibility. We know that the timeless
theory is the only way to explain how the Mass can be the same as
God wrote in the Bible with Paul that if Jesus has not risen from the dead and saved us we are still in our sins (1 Corinthians 15). This denies that sincerely repenting and going to God is enough and he will have mercy for if you are sincerely wrong he will have nothing to do with you. So the wrong sacrifice means no mercy. Sincerely thinking it is the sacrifice of Christ makes no difference for if God won’t forgive you for sincerely thinking you are saved he will make no exceptions.
Priests have a responsibility to know what they mean by offering Mass and understanding it thoroughly. For any priest to be irresponsible and not bother means that he doesn’t care if he is trying to kill Jesus again and offer a fake sacrifice for sin and leave the people in their sins. Responsibility means trying to do the right thing and taking the consequences so it can’t be any other way.
The doctrine of the God who is outside time and to whom every moment of time is just all like its concurrent instead of past and future is stolen from Greek philosophy. There is no evidence that this is the God of the Bible. Thus biblically, offering the Mass is attempting to murder Jesus Christ - again!
GOD’S WORD REFUTES THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
The function of a priest is to
offer sacrifice. So accordingly, the
reason why the Catholic Church calls its ministers priests is that they are
thought to have the power to offer Jesus’ sacrifice by saying
The Catholic Bible (which the
Church says men wrote but which God somehow wrote as well with the result that
they only wrote what he wanted) speaks against the Sacrifice of the
Catholics allege that the words Jesus said at the Last Supper imply that his sacrifice was present then. This is an outright lie. Jesus at no point indicates, "To be at this rite is the same as being at Calvary during my death from crucifixion." They say that as Jesus said the bread was his body sacrificed to God for many and the blood shed for the divine pardon of their sins that to celebrate the ritual is to offer Jesus crucified to God. Equally untrue. The words are symbolic. The words imply that he offered himself to God for others - yes. But he asks for the rite to be celebrated in his memory but does not say, “Say these words that the bread is my body and the wine is my blood in memory of me”. Also, some theologians say this rite could have been a drama that we are meant to copy. Then the use of the words by a minister don’t imply that he is offering Christ. And even if the rite looked back to the sacrifice of Jesus and offered that sacrifice that does require it to make the sacrifice present!! Offering a sacrifice is not necessarily the same thing as making a sacrifice.
Our Bible says that Paul the apostle wrote, "Jesus said this is my body over bread and this is my blood over wine and asked us to remember him by doing this. Until the Lord comes therefore every time you eat this bread and drink this cup you are proclaiming his death" 1 Corinthians 11. The Catholic Church says that proclaiming means making his death present. That is stretching the meaning of the word too far. And besides the context says the rite was to be a memorial of Jesus. To remember Jesus is to proclaim his death. And every time you eat the bread and drink the cup you proclaim the death of the Lord Jesus. It is not the consecration or the words about eating body and drinking blood that proclaims the death but the eating and drinking itself! As you do violence to the bread by eating it so you copy the violence done to the body of Jesus. As you spill the wine down your neck so you copy the spilling of the blood of Christ. Its the eating and drinking that counts. It pictures Jesus giving his body in death and shedding all his blood in the process for us. Just as we get the bread and cup we have got Jesus.
If Paul believed in the Catholic doctrine of the Mass he would not have written in such a way. The sacrifice would be there at the declaration that the bread and cup are the body and blood. But Paul talks as if the only fulfilment of Jesus' command to recall the sacrifice is in the eating of the bread and the drinking of the cup.
It is the consumption of bread and wine that proclaims the death of Jesus. If they were really the hidden body and blood of Jesus it would be more natural to write, "Until the Lord comes therefore every time you eat this flesh and drink this blood you are proclaiming his death".
The Bible then states that Paul would have rejected the notion of bread and wine becoming Jesus without any noticeable change.
Revelation 5:6 speaks of a lamb standing as if it were slain. Incredibly that is taken as proof that the book validates the offering of Mass. The lamb represents Jesus Christ who is understood as the Lamb of God. The problem is that Revelation is full of symbolic visions. Revelation does not claim that the lamb represents the perpetuation of Jesus' sacrifice.
Catholics hold that Psalm 110 says that Jesus would be a priest according to the order of Melchizidek. Since this man offered bread and wine to God it is reasoned that Jesus would do the same. But the Bible never says that Mel did that (Genesis 14:18) so the argument is wrong. The lie about Mel pops up in the First Eucharistic Prayer where God is asked to accept the sacrifice as he accepted the bread and wine of Melchizidek. Some Bible versions have it that Mel brought these things for he was a priest and others say he brought them and he was a priest. For and can have the same force in Greek but not necessarily here or all the time (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, page 253).
In Malachi 1:10-11, God says that among the Gentiles one perfect sacrifice will be offered all the time. Catholics say that this predicts the Mass for it speaks of one sacrifice being offered in many rites in many places. But perhaps Malachi is thinking of many animal sacrifices as a whole. All offerings to God are one in the sense that they are offered to honour him by a fellowship and in a spirit of union. But Malachi we must remember gave no hint that he meant blood sacrifice so it could be the sacrifice of lives offered to God – unbloody sacrifices or sacrifices of love not the cessation of life.
The Catholic Church says that the sacrifice of the Mass can take away sins though it is an unbloody sacrifice.
Protestants point to Hebrews 9:22 for it says that a sacrifice without blood cannot forgive sins.
Catholics reply that the Mass is unbloody in the sense that no blood is spilled by the
priest for he does not kill the victim. But God sees the blood of Christ being
shed long ago as if it were shed now so there is bloodshed in the Mass in an
invisible way and that blood can atone.
The Sacrifice on the Mass and the bloody sacrifice of
Another reply is that Christ did
the bloodshed on
Hebrews 10:11 says that the
sacrifices of the old priesthood could not remove sins simply because they were
repeated all the time. The sacrifices would have been stopped by God had there
been enough of them (Hebrews 10:2). The Church says these sacrifices
represented the sacrifice of Christ and through that sacrifice forgiveness was
granted for making these sacrifices but in themselves the offerings could not
pardon sin. So it was the future sacrifice of Christ that the power of
forgiveness came from not the sacrifices.
The sacrifice of
Hebrews 10 says that Christ
offered one sacrifice for sins and then SAT DOWN at the right hand of God. The
sitting down is an expression to clarify that Christ was doing no more
offering. Notice how it says that he
offered one sacrifice and doesn’t say he sacrificed the once instead. It is not the sacrifice that it is saying is finished
but the offering of the sacrifice a different thing. Therefore Christ though a priest in office
doesn’t offer any more. The priests of
Hebrews 13:10 says that Christians have an altar of sacrifice from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. This is symbolism for the book uses the symbols of tabernacles and other Old Testament items to illustrate Christian themes.
Hebrews 9:24-26 says that Jesus
went to the heavenly temple of God not to offer himself often because then he
would have to suffer many times since the creation of the world but he came at
the end of the ages to do away with sin by sacrificing himself. Protestants say this refutes the Mass which
is claimed by Catholics to be the same sacrifice as that of Calvary and
Hebrews 10:17-19 says that God
said that one day he will remember sins no more and it argues from this that
there will be no sacrifices for sin one day for there will be no need because a
sacrifice has erased the need for any sacrifices. Then it says that Christians are living in
that time for they have the right to enter the most holy place in Heaven. This
obviously says that God imputes no sin to the true Christian for Jesus has died
for them in their place as the sin offering that removes sins and that offering
Mass is nonsense for its all settled. Yet Catholics add their sin offerings to
the Christ sacrifice in the
Hebrews 4:16 and Hebrews 10:17 taken together say that Christians can now march boldly to the throne of God which is in the holiest place in heaven WHENEVER THEY WISH. The Catholic would have to say this only happens at Mass for the Mass is supposedly the closest you get to God and the holiest place on earth. The whole point of the salvation won by Christ is that so you can go to him whenever you need to or wish instead of having to look for a human priest.
The animal sacrifices that Hebrews says are useless for taking sin away for the blood of sheep and goats cannot do that were thought to be one sacrifice in spirit by the priests for they ate the sacrifices for communion to signify unity and they were offered as one community to one God. The Psalm says that the real sacrifice in all this is not the blood but the sacrifice of a contrite heart (Psalm 51:16, 17) and Hebrews 10:6,7 agrees totally. This indicates that the sacrifices were indeed thought to be one sacrifice with many renewals. But Hebrews rejected them for they involved several rites in which the one united sacrifice was offered. The Mass is thought to be one sacrifice with many renewals and rites as well and so Hebrews rejects it. To Hebrews the perfect sacrifice needs no renewing or perpetuating or Masses or rites. It is once and for all in every sense.
It says at 10:14, 18 that God has
perfected forever those who are made holy and that when all sins have been
forgiven as they have been through the power of the sacrifice of Christ there is
no further sacrifice for sin. Perfected forever.
God sees them as perfect not just now but also in the future. God sees the future. God forgave future sins at
To the claim that there is no further
sacrifice for sin since Jesus made his sacrifice, the Catholic Church answers
that they can be forgiven at Mass because it is the same sacrifice as Calvary
so the Mass then is allowed. But the
verses imply that you accept Jesus the once as your saviour and it is
enough. It is not your sacrifice to
offer and there is no need for Jesus to offer himself in the
You can only avail of the sacrifice of Christ by accepting what he has done for you and asking for pardon for your sins through it. To say that offering the Mass is the highest religious goal denies this and is blasphemy. To offer Mass instead of focusing on repenting sin is simply blasphemy for the offering isn’t necessary but accepting its benefits is what is necessary. Hebrews says that sinners making sin offerings is no good which was why Jesus had to be perfect to be able to make the sin offering of himself for sinners (7:27,28). This is sufficient proof that the early Christian Church and the scriptures forbade the Mass for it needs priests to offer it while we are told there is only one offering and Jesus alone could make it.
The New Testament never says that there are sacrificing priests in the Christian Church. The word translated priest in fraudulent Bibles is presbyter which simply means elder.
St Paul wrote in Catholicism’s infallible Bible that if
Jesus has not risen then the dead are lost forever and we will not be saved
from sin for our faith is useless (1 Corinthians 15). So sincerity cannot save
if faith is futile. If we have the wrong view of the resurrection we will not
be saved. This indicates that if we hold views regarding the atoning death of
Christ that are wrong we will not be saved and God will not count us as
Christians. In the sense that the atonement was the payment for sin it is
superior in importance to the resurrection. So if Paul then believed that Jesus
was sentenced by God to death for our sins in our place though he was innocent
then we will not be saved if we reject that doctrine.
TRADITION
AND THE SACRIFICE
The Jewish leaders followed both tradition and the Old Testament scriptures. The Catholic Mass comes from Catholic tradition for there is no evidence that priests have the power to offer the sacrifice of the Mass from the Bible. In Matthew 23:2,3 Jesus tells the people to obey the scribes and the Pharisees and all they teach but not to copy them. Jesus then here was encouraging their tradition as well for that was a part of their religious practice and they were strict about it. But in Matthew 15 he said that they taught the ideas of men as doctrines from God and if they contradict the word of God with their tradition they prefer their tradition instead and condemned this as evil. How can these two assertions be made to fit together?
Two answers are possible.
Jesus meant that you obey the scribes and Pharisees even when they teach false doctrine for it is safer to listen to them than not to for now and this is expediency and not an indication that tradition is good or safe.
Jesus meant that you obey the scribes and the Pharisees but not their traditions.
Neither answer allows us to make tradition equal to the Bible.
The scribes and Pharisees were only adhering to traditions they didn’t make themselves. There was every reason why they thought the traditions must be the word of God too for just because something is tradition doesn’t mean its wrong. Then the Catholic can’t argue, “When Jesus condemned tradition he condemned them for making things up as they went along not tradition like our Catholic tradition that has been handed down from previous generations for the Church can’t be blamed for making them up now even if it has done.”
Most of the traditions were not inventions but reasoned from the Old Testament. Jesus was not condemning the Jewish traditions because he thought they were wrong. They couldn’t have been all wrong. What he was against was making human reasoning and interpretation equal to the authority of the Old Testament scriptures. The Roman Catholic Church certainly teaches that its own tradition is equal to the Bible, Old and New Testaments both. And it claims that much of this tradition is just what was practiced from the start of the Church and was not reasoned or developed from embryonic and undeveloped doctrines in the Bible. If Jesus condemned traditions created as deductions from scripture how much more would he condemn traditions from the constant practice of the Church? And the Church knows fine well that that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and her assumption into Heaven and prayers to saints to name a few cannot even be traced to the first few generations after the apostles never mind the apostles themselves even though the Church claims that God stopped revealing his word with the death of the last apostle. The Church doesn’t give new revelations but claims it only clarifies existing revelation.
Some say it was different for the Catholic Church to have and follow tradition and declare it equal to the Bible for unlike the Jews Catholicism is blessed with infallibility and Christ promised to look after his Church forever. But Catholicism doesn’t use its infallibility much. It was only used three times in the twentieth century when Pius XI declared contraception wrong, Pius XII said that Mary was assumed into Heaven and John Paul II declared that the Church had no authority to ordain women. Most Catholic tradition is still out there circulating around there circulating around without the full stamp of infallibility.
Top of the Document
CONCLUSION
The Sacrifice of the Mass is a heresy and a blasphemy.
BOOKS CONSULTED
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS CATHOLICS ARE ASKING Tony Coffey, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 2006
Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine,
Book 2, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill & Son,
Apologetics for the Pulpit, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates
& Washbourne Ltd,
Born-Again Catholics and the Mass, William C Standridge Independent Faith
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius
Press,
Christian Order Vol 36 8-9 and
Christian Order Vol 36 Number
Confession of a Roman Catholic, Paul Whitcomb, TAN,
Critiques of God, Edited by Peter A Angeles (Religion and
Reason Section), Prometheus Books,
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press,
Encyclopedia of Theology, Edited
by Karl Rahner, Burns and Oates,
Eucharist, Centre of Christian Life, Rod Kissinger SJ, Liguori Publications,
Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, Fr Charles Chiniquy, Chick Publications,
Is Jesus Really Present in the Eucharist? Michael Evans,
Catholic Truth Society,
Handbook to the Controversy with
Living in Christ, A Dreze SJ, Geoffrey Chapman, London-Melbourne, 1969
Martin Luther, Richard Marius, Belknap
Press of
Papal Sin, Structures of Deceit, Garry Wills, Darton Longman and Todd, London, 2000
Radio Replies, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio
Replies Press,
Roman Catholic Claims, Charles Gore, MA, Longmans, Green
& Co,
Salvation, The Bible and Roman Catholicism, William
Webster, Banner of Truth,
Secrets of Romanism, Joseph Zaccello,
Loizeaux Brothers,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Veritas,
The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
The Mass, Sacrifice and Sacrament, William F Dunphy, CSSR, Liguori
Publications,
The Primitive Faith and Roman Catholic Developments, Rev
John A Gregg, APCK,
The Student’s Catholic Doctrine, Rev Charles Hart BA,
Burns & Oates,
This is My Body, This is My Blood, Bob and Penny Lord,
Journeys of Faith,
Why Does God…? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls, Bucks, 1970
The Web
Transubstantiation, Is it a True Doctrine?
http://www.geocities.com/christian_apologist2001/
MOST BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:
The Amplified Bible