One of the major disagreements between Catholics and Protestants involves the nature of the Mass. We Catholics believe that the Mass makes Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross present to us, which means it allows us to offer that same sacrifice of Calvary to the Father along with Jesus and receive its benefits.
However, most Protestants think this teaching is gravely wrong. For them, the Eucharist is simply a memorial of Jesus’ death, so His sacrifice remains solely in the past.
The Passages in Hebrews
To prove that, they often point to some passages in the Letter to the Hebrews that make it clear that Jesus only offered Himself once and will never do so again:
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)
And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, 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 9:27-28)
In response, we Catholics usually say that these verses have nothing to do with the Mass. They simply say that Jesus only died once (as Hebrews 9:24-26 makes clear) and that He only offered one sacrifice. Catholics wholeheartedly agree with that analysis, but we don’t believe that Jesus dies again every time we celebrate the Eucharist! Instead, the Mass allows us to continually participate in His single, once-for-all sacrificial death, which is an eternal sacrifice.
After we say this, the discussion normally goes one of two ways. Either it becomes a gridlock with neither side accepting the other’s understanding of these key verses, or it moves on to other texts and leaves the entire book of Hebrews behind.
But I would suggest that there is a better way to debate this. Hebrews isn’t merely consistent with our Catholic beliefs about the Mass. If we read it carefully, we can see that it actually confirms those beliefs. So, if we ever find ourselves in a discussion about the biblical basis of the Mass, we should not just brush aside this crucial book. Instead, we can actually enlist it as key evidence for the Catholic view.
Jesus’ Permanent Priesthood
To begin with, we need to take a look at this telling passage:
The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but [Jesus] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 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 7:23-25)
Let’s go through the logic of the text line by line. First, it says that the “former priests” (the Jewish priests under the Law of Moses) died and then were succeeded by others who took their place. So far, so good.
Next, the passage says that Jesus “holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.” In other words, because He was raised from the dead, Jesus will no longer die, so He doesn’t need anybody to replace Him. He remains a priest forever (as Hebrews 7:15-22 says).
Then, it tells us that because Jesus holds His priesthood permanently, He is able to “save those who draw near to God through him” by interceding on their behalf. This means that He can now intercede for people and save them precisely because He is still a priest.
This intercession is still part of His priestly ministry, and that raises a question for us: If Jesus offered His priestly sacrifice 2,000 years ago, what does it mean for Him to continue interceding for people as a priest? For that matter, what does it even mean for Him to continue as a priest at all? Wouldn’t His priestly ministry have ended right after He offered His one sacrifice?
Jesus’ Permanent Sacrifice
The answer lies in a few texts that tell us what the author of Hebrews had in mind when he wrote about priests. Take a look at these passages:
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. (Hebrews 5:1)
Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. (Hebrews 8:1-3)
For the author of Hebrews, the role of priests is to offer sacrifice, so, if Jesus continues as a priest after His resurrection, He must continue offering sacrifice as well. But how could that be? What sacrifice could Jesus offer in heaven 2,000 years after His death and resurrection?
The book doesn’t answer that question for us, but if we accept the Catholic understanding of the Mass, it all falls into place. Jesus’ priestly sacrifice was His death on the cross. Therefore, if He continues to offer any sacrifice in heaven, it must mean that He continually offers that exact same sacrifice.
Once we understand that reality of His priesthood, we can see that when Hebrews emphasizes the once-for-all-nature of Jesus’ death, it is not ruling out the Catholic understanding of the Mass. It is simply saying that Jesus does not have to die multiple times. That means that we can participate in His single sacrifice and offer it to God with Him over and over again.
In fact, if we read Hebrews closely, that is exactly what it says Jesus does. His priestly ministry did not end once He took His last earthly breath. Rather, it continues even now in heaven as He ceaselessly offers His eternal sacrifice on the cross to the Father, just like the Catholic Church teaches.
Excellent work JP. Have you read the doctoral thesis by the Cistercian Sri Lankan priest father, Robert Abeynaike?
Dr. Dom
1-405-834-7506
[email protected]
JP:
What makes you summarily dismiss what took place when Jesus walked on the earth? Or what took place on Pentecost?
Some Catholic Churches are actually performing the full immersion baptism.
I’m not dismissing Jesus’ baptism. I’m simply pointing out that we don’t have to imitate all the details of His baptism when we get baptized, so there’s no reason why we have to imitate the fact that He got baptized as an adult.
I’m not sure why you think I’m dismissing Pentecost. What does that have to do with the question of whether or not we need to be baptized as adults because Jesus was baptized as an adult?
And I’m not sure what the fact that some churches baptize by immersion has to do with any of this either. You can baptize babies by immersion too, so this is irrelevant to the question you asked.
Just wondering – Jesus was baptized as an adult. This was His example for us to follow. So how can infant baptism be the same?
Who says we have to imitate all the details of Jesus’ baptism? Do we have to be baptized in a river? Do we have to be baptized in the wilderness? Do we have to be baptized in the Middle East? Do we have to be baptized by a Jewish man?
Simply put, what makes you think that we have to imitate that specific detail of Jesus’ baptism?
JP Nunez: If the Holy Spirit is received at both Baptism and Confirmation, those locations that do First Communion before Confirmation apparently feel that Baptism provides enough of the Holy Spirit to justify it.
Do you have any evidence to back that up, or are you just assuming that it’s true because it’s the only way to salvage your theory? Because here in the US, confirmation comes after first communion, but the American Church is still very clear that we receive the Holy Spirit in both confirmation and baptism.
Sorry, I misread the last part of your comment. So you can forget about my last sentence, but my question at the beginning still stands. But either way, if we receive the Holy Spirit in confirmation at all, that still means your theory doesn’t work. If we can receive the benefits of Calvary at all after baptism, then your argument that we don’t need to receive the benefits of Calvary at Mass because we already received them at baptism is unsound.
JP Nunez: Receiving First Communion before Confirmation probably assumes that the Holy Spirit is received at Baptism.
Not at all. The Church is VERY clear that we receive the Holy Spirit at both baptism and confirmation. In fact, it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that receiving the Holy Spirit is pretty much the whole point of confirmation.
Peter:
Good luck getting through to JP.
JP Nunez: The results of Calvary are received at Baptism, and when we receive Christ’s Spirit within us. This precedes the Eucharist.
Every grace we receive throughout our entire lives is a result of Calvary, so the fact that we receive some of those graces at baptism and confirmation doesn’t preclude receiving more later in life.
Also, in the West, we receive first communion before we receive confirmation, so it’s actually not true that confirmation “precedes the Eucharist.”
JP:
I have offered passages from scriptures to refute your points. Yet, you seem to summarily dismiss them, or contend that they mean something else.
I then offered you a footnote from a Catholic Bible that explained Hebrews 10: 11.
I sit in mass and listen to the prayers, the readings (which are provided in the same 3-year rotation), the homilies, accept the Eucharist in only wafer form, and read submissions on Catholic Stand. And I have more questions than real answers.
For example, after blessing the gifts offered at mass, the priest then retrieves wafers from the tabernacle before distribution. This tells me that the RCC believes that Jesus is present in the “inner room”; Jesus specifically warns us about this in Matthew 24.
I’m also planning to send these comments to your email because I can’t count on Catholic Stands to register my comments.
If you think I’ve simply dismissed any passages you’ve brought up without adequately explaining them, let me know and I’ll provide further comments on them.
You also say that I “contend that they mean something else,” but why is that a bad thing? Isn’t that the whole point of discussing Scripture? We give our competing interpretations of different passages, and we discuss which ones fit the text better. So why is it bad that I’m giving competing interpretations of Scripture passages?
And I’m not sure what your point is about the priest getting the Eucharist from the tabernacle. How does that imply that Jesus is present in the “inner room” (and what does the “inner room” have to do with any of this anyway?), and how does Matthew 24 come into the picture?
I just took a look at your last comment a bit more closely, and I realized that I misinterpreted it. I’m not sure how that happened, so sorry about that. Let me add a few more comments here.
1) I said that the “work of redemption” isn’t carried out in the Eucharist, but I see that you quoted the Catechism saying it is. I thought you were using that phrase to refer to Jesus literally being re-sacrificed, so let me correct myself. The “work of redemption” is carried out inasmuch as Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is offered to the Father again, but Jesus is NOT re-sacrificed. He only died once, but He offers that one sacrifice to the Father again and again.
2) The text you quoted makes too much out of the distinction between a bloody vs unbloody sacrifice. Yes, Catholic theology describes the Mass as being offered in an unbloody manner, but remember, we’re offering a sacrifice in which Jesus’ blood was in fact shed. The point the Catechism is making is that the physical actions that we perform at Mass don’t involve the shedding of blood, not that the sacrifice we’re offering involves no blood. It does (since it’s Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross), but we simply offer it in a way that doesn’t involve Jesus’ blood literally being poured out on our altars.
I think I got the main points I missed last time. If there’s anything else you’d like me to comment on, just let me know.
And once again, I have to mention to you failed to even try to address the actual argument I made in this article. Even if all your points are correct, all you’ve done is found a contradiction in Scripture. I have my passages that back up my position, and you have yours. But that’s not how theology works. We can’t just pick and choose which Bible verses we’re going to believe. We have to integrate EVERYTHING Scripture says into our theology, and you haven’t even tried to do that. Sure, you may disagree with my interpretations of certain passages, but at least I’m trying to integrate all of the Scripture. You’re simply cherry-picking verses that you think support your position and completely ignoring the ones that I say support my position.
[…] . . . a Catholic Mōdê Blog An Alice von Hildebrand Reading List – John Burger at Aleteia How the Letter to the Hebrews Supports the Mass – J.P. Nunez at Catholic Stand Our Culture Despises Innocence Because It Fears Its Power […]
The Eucharist
The Worship of the Eucharist
Found this online from “what every Catholic should know”
| The Sacrifice of the Mass
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ is sacrificed afresh in the Mass, and that each time the Mass is said, this renewing of His sacrifice adds a bit of merit that can count toward ones salvation. If the Catechism is to be believed, then each time the Mass is performed, Christs work on the cross is present and the work of redemption is carried out. However, the Bible reveals that the work of redemption was a one-time act which was completed when Jesus Christ died on the cross at Calvary. Dear Catholic reader, your understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross is pivotal for your eternal destiny. Will you rest in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross or the continual work of the priests at the altars of the Roman Catholic Church?
The Catechism Says:
The Bible Says:
Para 1364 “As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost..
Para 1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.[187]
Hebrews 10-18 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Para 1367 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.” “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.”[188]
Para 1405 Every time this mystery is celebrated, “the work of our redemption is carried on” and we “break the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ.”[246]
Para 1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
According to the Roman Catholic Church, one has to accept the continual reincarnation and unbloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the remission of ones sins. The Catholic Catechism further states in para 1381 “That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that ‘cannot be apprehended by the senses,’ says St. Thomas, ‘but only by faith, which relies on divine authority…” The idea that Christs sacrifice on the cross over 2000 years ago was not sufficient for the remission of all our sins is a direct contradiction with the Holy Scriptures. Not only is it clear from the Bible that God has required the shedding of blood for the remission of sins but that Jesus shed His precious blood once for all on Calvary.Dear reader, are you beginning to see the paradox? You are being told that you must believe in the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and its sacrificial system by faith alone and the Bible is asking you to believe in the all sufficient, once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ for all of your sins, by faith alone. Either Gods Word alone holds the truth or it is in the Catechism. My friend, both of these views cannot be true.
In the Mass, the “work of redemption,” as you put it, isn’t carried out again and again. Jesus DOES NOT die again, nor is He sacrificed over and over again. Rather, He simply offers His once-and-for-all, already completed sacrifice to the Father again and again. To reiterate, His work of dying on the cross only happened once, but Jesus re-offers that sacrifice to the Father again and again.
Along similar lines, Jesus is NOT reincarnated at every Mass. I honestly have no idea where you got that idea from, but it’s about as far from actual Catholic teaching on the Mass as you can get.
Now, let me ask you a question: what does it mean for Jesus to continue working as a priest if, as Hebrews says, the job of a priest is to offer sacrifice? It’s very telling that you haven’t tried to refute the actual argument I give in this article. All you do is keep presenting arguments against the Catholic understanding of the Mass, but you’ve made zero effort to explain the passages that my article brings up in defense of the Mass.
JP Nunez: The graces of the Father flow into us when Christ’s Spirit is within us.
The sacraments associated with this are Baptism and Confirmation.
Without Calvary, there would have been no Pentecost and no Spirit of Christ to inhabit us.
We need to be in the state of grace before we participate in the Eucharist because the Eucharist does not put us there; therefore, there is no repetition of Pentecost after each Mass. There is only one Calvary and one Pentecost.
We identify with Christ’s death by Baptism (see Romans 6:4).
I have to be honest, I have no idea how any of this is relevant to our discussion.
JP Nunez: The purpose of Calvary was to enable us to have access to God. Christ’s Spirit living within us gives us our access to the Father. The sacraments associated with this presence are Baptism and Confirmation. Jesus doesn’t need to continually offer His sacrifice to the Father again and again because we already have access to the Father when we have Christ’s Spirit within us.
Christ now intercedes for us as our one mediator between the Father and us.
Peter:
Thanks for sharing.
The purpose of the cross wasn’t just to enable us to have access to God. That’s a very oversimplified view of Jesus’ sacrifice. His sacrifice merited for us all the graces God gives us as well as the forgiveness of sins, so when we participate in that sacrifice, we have its benefits applied to us all over again, and we’re showered with those graces. Also, participating in the cross allows us to offer Jesus’ perfect worship to the Father, a form of worship that we mere humans could never offer on our own. That’s why continually offering Jesus’ one sacrifice matters.
JP:
Hebrews 7:
22 Accordingly, Jesus has also become the guarantee of a better covenant.
23 Furthermore, the former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from remaining in office. 24 However, Jesus holds a perpetual priesthood because he remains forever. 25 Therefore, he has the full power to save those who approach God through him, since he lives forever to intercede for them.
I think the message from Paul is clear. Christ is our perpetual intercessor.
How does this support your contentions that we can conclude that Jesus, as well as priests in the mass, continually offer His sacrifice to God?
I literally explain that in my article. In fact, that passage is the linchpin of my whole argument. Jesus isn’t just our intercessor. He’s our priestly intercessor. He continues as a priest forever, but if His one sacrifice is over and done with, what could it mean for Him to continue as a priest forever?
Well, as I explain in the article, Hebrews elsewhere explains that the role of priests is to offer sacrifice, so if Jesus continues interceding for us precisely in a priestly manner, that has to mean that He intercedes for us by offering sacrifice. Now, the letter doesn’t explain how we can reconcile this with its teaching that Jesus’ sacrifice is complete, and my contention is that the Catholic understanding of the Mass is the only way to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory teachings.
Granted, this doesn’t say that ordained priests offer the Mass, but this argument isn’t supposed to prove everything we believe about the Mass. It simply shows that the core idea of the Mass, that Jesus continually offers His one, completed sacrifice to the Father over and over again throughout all history, is there in Scripture.
JP Nunez: When the Spirit of Christ is living within us before we participate in the Eucharist, we are linked with all that Christ did for us on Calvary. The Spirit provides us with our royal priesthood without formal ordination.
Maybe I just got a bit lost with all the different comments I’ve been replying to, but I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Can you please expand on this?
What about this?
Hebrews 10:10-13
New Catholic Bible
10 And it was by this “will” that we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 [a]Day after day every priest stands to perform his ministry, offering over and over again the same sacrifices that can never remove sins. 12 But Jesus offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, and then took his seat at the right hand of God, 13 where he now waits until his enemies are made his footstool.
Footnotes
Hebrews 10:11 Every priest stands to perform his ministry . . . Jesus . . . took his seat: members of the Levitical priesthood always “stood” because their work was never finished; Jesus “took his seat” because his work was completed.
As I point out in the article, Hebrews also teaches that Jesus continues His priestly work in heaven, so we can’t interpret Hebrews 10 too strictly. That passage isn’t supposed to tell the whole story. It simply means that Jesus’ sacrifice is complete, but as we can deduce from the fact that Jesus continues His priestly work, it doesn’t rule out the idea that He continually offers that same sacrifice to the Father in heaven. If it does, then the letter’s teaching that Jesus continues His priestly work doesn’t make much sense.
Read and reflect on the Gospel of John, Chapter 6.
Don’t see how John 6 supports your statements about making us present at Calvary.
Paul told the Corinthians: “26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.”
How does proclaiming the death of the Lord equate to making us present at Calvary, or as the author of the article claims, “That means that we can participate in His single sacrifice and offer it to God with Him over and over again.”?
Jesus ended the priesthood. He is the last priest. We don’t have need for human priests any more.
That is the import of the verses you cite and it doesn’t exactly correspond to Catholic practice.
Those verses say that Jesus ended the Levitical priesthood, but it doesn’t mean that there are no priests in Christianity. Peter tells us that we’re all royal priests (1 Peter 2:9), so the teaching of Hebrews doesn’t rule out priests in Christianity. And if that’s the case, then it doesn’t rule out a special priestly “class” (for lack of a better word) either.
That may be true, but the first readers of Hebrews likely would have understood it literally. It’s only much later that we find the first mentions of what we would call “priests”.
If that’s the case, then they would’ve understood it to also rule out the common priesthood of the baptized, but we don’t want to say that. Either Hebrews rules out any and all priests, or it allows for both the common priesthood of the baptized and the ordained, ministerial priesthood (even if it doesn’t explicitly say anything about ordained priests). Its teaching that Jesus ended the Levitical priesthood can’t rule out one but not the other.
[…] links. Book Review: Death Comes for the Cathedrals by Marcel Proust – New Liturgical Movement How the Letter to the Hebrews Supports the Mass – J.P. Nunez at Catholic Stand Online Latin Courses: Discounts for Clergy & Seminarians […]
We live in the eternal NOW. The Holy Mass makes present for us the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. The priest in persona Christi makes that possible. The words of Consecration are essential. When we participate in the Mass we are privileged to be present at Calvary. Not complicated. But we must believe and know what the Mass is all about. What an awesome grace it is. I refer readers to the pamphlet entitled “The Infinite Value of the Holy Mass”, IVM2, Marian Press in Stockbridge, MA (National Shrine of the Divine Mercy). You can obtain copies by calling 1-800-804-3823 Pamphlet IVM2
We live in the eternal NOW. The Holy Mass makes present for us the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. The priest in persona Christi makes that possible.
Really? Please share the scriptures that support that.
When we are dead with Christ, and have the presence of His Spirit within us, we are beneficiaries of what Christ did for us on Calvary prior to participating in the Mass.
Why does this matter? It seems like a rather pointless potAto/potato argument to me. You can look at it as a constant sacrifice or a one-time sacrifice, but the result is the same. The gates of heaven are opened up.
If Jesus doesn’t continually offer His sacrifice to the Father again and again, then the Mass is a false form of worship. So it matters very much.
Thanks for sharing Hebrews 7:23-25.
As I have argued previously with you, no need to seek other intercessors.
Notice you left out verse 27, which kind of negates your presentation.
I didn’t leave it out. I literally quote that passage in the first section, and I explain what it means. Check out my response to Peter below for more info on it.
Hebrews 7:27 does say that Jesus “needs not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”
I explicitly talk about this verse in the first section, and I explain what it means:
“In response, we Catholics usually say that these verses have nothing to do with the Mass. They simply say that Jesus only died once (as Hebrews 9:24-26 makes clear) and that He only offered one sacrifice. Catholics wholeheartedly agree with that analysis, but we don’t believe that Jesus dies again every time we celebrate the Eucharist! Instead, the Mass allows us to continually participate in His single, once-for-all sacrificial death, which is an eternal sacrifice.”
Also, let me comment a bit on the translation you quote. It has the word “sacrifice” in the singular, but in the original Greek, it’s plural. So the verse isn’t saying that Jesus doesn’t offer any sacrifice whatsoever now that He’s in heaven. Rather, the point is that He doesn’t offer multiple sacrifices day after day like the Jewish priests used to do. However, it still leaves open the possibility that He offers the same single sacrifice over and over again, as the letter implies when it says that Jesus remains a priest even after His resurrection and ascension.