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.
No comments:
Post a Comment