Why the Roman Mass is an Abomination (Biblical and Theological Arguments)

 

Here, we are now dealing with a set of arguments to show that the Roman Catholic Mass is against reason and the overall theology of the book of Hebrews concerning Christ’s priesthood and atonement. Many of these arguments have been long defended by our doctors and scholars.

Argument #1 - In the book of Hebrews, the writer argues for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Levitical priesthood by saying the following: “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 forever.” (Hebrews 7:23-24). Thus, there are no priests, properly speaking, that are now present on earth, since Christ holds his priesthood forever. And yet, Rome has many so-called priests all over the world which perform the rite of the Mass in their liturgy over and over again, it being the prerequisite for offering their Mass in the first place. Rome is thus at variance with what the book of Hebrews says.

Robert Bellarmine responds by saying this: “No Catholic affirms that the priests who are in the Church succeed Christ…Paul does indeed exclude priests of the same order and dignity, but not inferior priests who, in respect of Christ, are really servants. No one indeed can succeed Christ in the same order because he lives forever, but nothing prevents others from being instituted under him as his vicars and servants; so that although Christ is our only Shepherd and Teacher (Matt. 23:8) still there can be other inferior teachers and shepherds without detriment to him.” (On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Book I, Chapter 25)

This response of his is to no avail. For, if Bellarmine’s reasoning concerning Papist priests being Christ’s “vicars” or “participating” in His priesthood, it would be at variance with the biblical typology between Melchizedek and Christ (argued for in Hebrews 7). This is because Melchizedek had no such vicars or “representatives” in his priesthood during the Old Testament period. It is this point which is used by the apostle to prove Christ’s superiority. One may respond by saying that since the antitype is greater than the type (a point which is indeed true per se). However, this is in specific respects such as Christ actually being preexistent (in relation to the apostle’s statement that Melchizedek is “without father, mother, or genealogy”). Nowhere in Scripture do we read that Christ is greater than Melchizedek in respect of allegedly having vicars and participators in His office as the supreme High Priest of His people, the church. Plus, it is better to have no participators or successors in the priesthood, one of things which makes Christ’s priesthood greater than that of the Levitical priests in the Old Testament. 

[2]. As to Bellarmine’s line of reasoning that since though Christ is the Prophet and Supreme teach of the church, yet this does not prevent there being secondary teachers, so also this does not prevent there from being “secondary priests”, while Christ still retaining the supreme office of High Priest, the following things must be said:

a) Christ’s Priestly office is obviously distinct and different, although most certainly in harmony with His Prophetic office. As Turretin said concerning Bellarmine’s reasonings, “A prophet who treats with men in the name of God differs from a priest who treats with God in the name of men.” Since Christ is no longer bodily present on earth, it is easy to see why He would give apostles, teachers, and ministers. However, He now performs His office of High Priest in heaven, thus not requiring any secondary ministers.

b) Christ did indeed institute apostles and evangelists (Ephesians 4:11), but nowhere does he institute a proper office of priests for the New Covenant.

c) Inferior pastors under Christ does not do any theological damage to the typology between Christ and Melchizedek (or to be more specific, in the case of the Prophetical office, the typology between Christ and Moses), whereas the Roman Catholic view on “secondary priests” most certainly does, as we showed above.

d) The entire liturgy of the Roman Mass is performed by the priest on earth. Thus, it would seem that he is more than just a mere “representative” of Christ, but rather almost a successor, as it were. To put it more bluntly, do the Papists claim that Christ Himself is through the priest, speaking the words of the Mass that are contained in the Roman Missal?

Argument #2 - This argument is perhaps the most well-known of the arguments that the Reformed church has made concerning this topic, namely that the Mass does injury to the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. This argument is based many statements of this in the book of Hebrews: “24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:24-28); “10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,” (Hebrews 10:10-12)

The Roman Catholic response to this argument is well known, namely that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice as the one at Calvary. The sacrifice of the Mass is a representation or application of this one sacrifice. This distinction is that which they rely upon in order to escape the apostle’s words in Hebrews 9 and 10. But this distinction which they invent in this case will not help them for a number of reasons:

[1]. This distinction is a contradiction in terms. There is a crucial difference between a thing and the representation of that thing. The representation of something is done (in the case of the Mass) in the present, the thing itself is in the past. Thus the Mass is both the representation of the sacrifice of the cross, and the sacrifice of the cross itself (as to substance, so they teach). 

[2]. There are many things which show a difference in substance between the sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacrifice of the cross, such as the following: a) if the Mass is the same as the sacrifice of the cross, then it must be either a continuation or repetition of what was done at the cross. But both of these imply imperfection in the sacrifice of the cross, because if something needs to be continued till it be perfect, this implies, by definition, that it is imperfect. If the Mass is a repetition of the sacrifice on the cross, then this also shows imperfection in the work of the cross, as the apostle clearly states in Hebrews 7:26-27. b) The sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the Mass differ in substance as to their place - the former was at Calvary in Israel, the other is done daily all over the world. 

[3]. The application of an offering and the offering itself are different. The latter performs the action, the former supposes that the action has already been done. Thus, if the Mass is merely an application of the sacrifice of Calvary, then it would follow that they are different in substance, according to the reasoning given. If they are different in substance, then by definition they are not the same sacrifice, and the Mass is demolished.  

Argument #3 - It belongs to the very nature of a sacrifice for the thing that is being sacrificed to be destroyed. This is why in Hebrew זֶבַח (“sacrifice”) is semantically to זָבַח (“to slaughter, slay”). Such is also the case in Greek with the words θυσία and θύω. Thus, if the Mass is truly a sacrifice wherein Christ is offered up, then they must conclude that Christ is destroyed or slain in the offering, which is an execrable blasphemy that no Papist would ever concede in his right mind.

A Response to Gavin Ortlund on Infant Baptism

 

Those who are involved in the dialogue between Baptists and Presbyterians concerning whether or not infants ought to be baptized (I am a Presbyterian), know that the main argument for the baptism of infants is based on a continuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Testament, which can be formulated as follows: "Just as children were circumcised under the Old Testament, so also children ought to be baptized under the New Testament."

There have been two typical responses given by credobaptists to this sort of theological reasoning. One type of response stresses discontinuity between circumcision and baptism, and between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. This is generally done by more modern Baptists.

However, the classic Baptist theologians of the 17th century granted that there was indeed unity between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant. Such was the case with a writer like Nehemiah Coxe (d. 1688), and more modernly so with Paul K. Jewett (as found in his book Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace).   

Gavin Ortlund (whose videos on Roman Catholicism, I must commend to you) has offered a similar argument, under the assumption that there is indeed some connection between circumcision and baptism, but that even if this were granted, this couldn't prove that infants should be baptized, because the group of infants that were circumcised under the Old Covenant are not the same as the infants that being baptized under the New Covenant (in Presbyterianism). Here is how he formulates his argument:

"This appeal to continuity with circumcision is at the core of the Reformed paedobaptist argument....But this appeal to continuity raises a question. Who exactly were the proper recipients of circumcision? To whom is Warfield referring with the word children? Circumcision is given in Genesis 17:9 to 'you and your seed [offspring, descendants; Hebrew zerah] after you, for the generations to come.' The individuals in view here are the intergenerational descendants of Abraham. The faith of an Israelite child’s parents was not what determined the child’s right to circumcision; it was the child’s association with the nation of Israel. In other words, the lines of covenant throughout the Old Testament weren’t drawn around individual believing families, but around the national family of Abraham. It wasn’t the 'children of believers” who had the right to the sacrament of initiation, but the 'children of Abraham.' So, given paedobaptist presuppositions, why not baptize the grandchildren of believers, too? If we’re really building off continuity with the Old Testament precedent, why stop at one generation?" (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/why-not-grandchildren-an-argument-against-reformed-paedobaptism/)

Dr. Ortlund is very clear in saying that whether or not an Israelite parent was a believer or not was not what determined whether or not their children had a right to circumcision. This is the essential bottom line of his overall argument.

The problem with this argument (and many other credobaptist arguments) is that it overemphasizes the physical and ethnic aspects of the Old Covenant to the point where faith and/or loyalty no longer has any real significance in covenant membership within Israel. This is not the picture we see within the Old Testament. I will offer a couple pieces of evidences to show this.

Excommunication from the Old Covenant

In the Old Testament, we see many times that certain sins or actions of Israelites could lead to them being "cut off" from the covenant community:

"24 Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, 25 and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you 27 (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), 28 lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29 For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 18:24-30)

"A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:27)

"6 If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. 9 But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you." (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)

"2 If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, 4 and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, 5 then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5) 

Each of these passages show that loyalty to the God of Israel was a key and important aspect of the Old Covenant people.

Dr. Ortlund responds by saying that this view of the Abrahamic covenant is not in agreement with the historic Reformed view, and John Calvin's commentary on Genesis 17 in particular (we will examine this point later).

Ortlund's other response is as follows:

"Throughout the Old Testament, apostate, unbelieving Israelites still fall under the appellation “my people.” The rite continues generation after generation, at times so far apart from inward appropriation that the prophet laments, “all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart” (Jeremiah 9:27)....This is not to say that exclusion from the covenant community was impossible, or that Gentiles could not be grafted in. Unfaithful Israelites could be killed or banished from the land of Israel for a variety of sins. Similarly, non-Israelites sojourning among the people could enter into the covenant community, partaking of the nation’s laws and ordinances, eating the Passover meal, etc.—and in such cases they and their offspring were circumcised (e.g., Exod 12:48). Thus, it is not exactly right to say the offspring of Abraham simpliciter received circumcision—it was the nation that this offspring comprised, into which people enter, and from which people could be excluded. But excommunication or extermination from Israel occurred in response to specific and high-handed acts of rebellion like witchcraft, sorcery, blasphemy, particularly egregious forms of idolatry, etc. (e.g., Lev 20:27, 24:16, Deut. 17:2–5). It is unwarranted to infer the necessity of personal faith simply because someone has avoided the specific sins for which one will be stoned or banished. Membership in the nation of Israel had cultural, national, economic, and social dimensions, and huge numbers of Israelites remained Israelites without any evidence of personal faith in the God of Israel (think how many wicked kings throughout Samuel–Kings, for example, remained kings over God’s people despite their rejection of God’s laws).Thus, the conditions of excommunication introduced by the Mosaic law hundreds of years after the institution of circumcision did not redefine the Abrahamic covenant as “those who believe and their children,” as would be necessary to establish continuity with contemporary paedobaptist practice. Rather, God’s people were a national and inter-generational body, in line with Genesis 17:9–15; this was the entity from which one was excommunicated, or into which one was grafted. “Stone the sorcerer among you” is a far cry from “examine the credibility of their profession.” With regard to membership and excommunication among the people of God in the old and new covenants, we must say as we have said with circumcision and baptism: similar but not identical." 

The key assertion made by Ortlund which I want to focus on is his claim that "excommunication or extermination from Israel occurred in response to specific and high-handed acts of rebellion like witchcraft, sorcery, blasphemy, particularly egregious forms of idolatry, etc. (e.g., Lev 20:27, 24:16, Deut. 17:2–5). It is unwarranted to infer the necessity of personal faith simply because someone has avoided the specific sins for which one will be stoned or banished."

Granted, excommunication for some sins (such as sexual immorality [Lev. 18], or necromancy [Lev. 20:27]) would not necessarily prove in and of itself the necessity of personal faith for inclusion in the substance of the covenant community. But, what about the texts which speak of excommunication for worshipping other gods? If that is not an act of "faithlessness", I don't know what is. 

Faithful Non-Israelites in the Covenant

Another piece of evidence which shows that faithfulness and obedience was a key aspect of the Old Covenant is the presence of non-Israelites within that covenant, undoubtedly being Gentiles who worshipped the true God of Israel. We see an example of this in how the liturgy of the Passover is described:

"48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. 49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you." (Exodus 12:48-49)

Notice that even for the faithful non-Israelite, all of his children are considered members of the covenant ("let all his males be circumcised"). 

Another point to note within all of this is that the argument for paedobaptism on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant is not based on Israel's history altogether (a ton of which is failures and apostasy from God), but rather on the design of that covenant as it was instituted in Genesis 17. 

Other Objections

Gavin also brings up Joshua 5 as an argument:

"It is difficult to imagine, for example, the parents in Israel being lined up at Gilgal in Joshua 5:2–8 to be examined concerning whether they professed faith, in order to determine whether their children were eligible for circumcision. No, Joshua 5:8 records that the entire nation was circumcised because—as specified by Genesis 17—circumcision was for the entire nation, not just for believers and their children within the nation"

However, in this context, any Israelite could have declined to be circumcised and then left Israel (Genesis 17:14). Not only that, the act of circumcision is physically painful. Thus, it would seem reasonable to assume that a willingness to undergo circumcision would imply at least some form of a profession of faith and loyalty in the party who is being circumcised. 

Dr. Ortlund also asks for evidence for a "believers and their children" ecclesiology within Scripture. While Acts 2:38-39 is the text that would immediately jump to mind for most Presbyterians, I would also point out that the OT carries a form of this ecclesiology as well:

"Let your work be shown to your servants, and your glorious power to their children" (Psalm 90:16)