# Sacrifice of the Mass



## Dean (Feb 4, 2005)

Hi all. This is my first post. Can one believe in the Romish 'Sacrifice of the Mass' and be saved?

Dean


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 4, 2005)

Salvation depends on God. (John 3:3). God can regenerate a man, change him, and then teach him the truth, then the man will reject the mass as he learns the truth.

One cannot remain under the mass with knowledge of its intent. Its devil worship and blasphemy against Christ's work.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Feb 4, 2005)

Hola, Dean, and welcome! 

You have posed a difficult question, in that we must now ask ourselves, "Can THIS particular person be saved?"

I think most of us might agree that if so, it would be in spite of his/her bad theology. To not agree at the outset that Christ's sacrifice was perfect, complete, and finished, goes against the Scriptures so strongly that it would be difficult to imagine WHY this person thinks Christ must "be crucified again" to be efficacious for him. So I would say that most, if not almost all, who hold to the above view would NOT be trusting in Christ's finished work on the cross, and therefore, whithout hope of salvation. Again though, I'd hate to rule out the possibility of an exception, but ordinarily I think we could make a blanket statement about it since we have so much clear support from Scripture.

My


----------



## Dean (Feb 4, 2005)

*How then could Augustine be saved?*

"In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters).

“Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him” (City of God).

”For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that prayers for those who have died in communion of the Body of and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf” (Sermons).

“…Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered for them, or when alms are given in the church…” (Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love).

“The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible Sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice" (City of God).

“…Open your eyes at last, then, any time, and see, from the rising of the sun to its setting, the Sacrifice of Christians is offered, not in one place only, as was established with you Jews, but everywhere… Not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedech" (Sermon Against Jews).

Dean


----------



## Dean (Feb 4, 2005)

I don't think anybody says Christ is "crucified again." Catholics say that the once-for-all sacrifice of the cross is "made present."

But still, how could someone (Augustine for instance) who is supossedly regenerate believe this?

Dean


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 4, 2005)

A few points, (however, when doulosChristou responds, you will have a better answer).

In Augustin's day, Rome's later doctrine of transsubstantiation was not developed. Augustin still reckons this sacrament _sacramentally,_ that is, as a symbol of the lasting reality of Christ's sacrifice of himself on the cross. We might express it differently than Augustin, but we today are not as far from him as he is from medieval/modern RCC doctrine and practice. When we see the elements at the table, we recognize the "broken body and the shed blood of our Lord." That is, we recognize a sacrifice, but the sacrifice is not in the elements themselves, nor is it a perpetual sacrifice "made present." And this too I think Augustin would repudiate as blasphemy.

I don't know if he is evidencing a germinal belief in purgatory, though I want to doubt it. In speaking of the departed, I think he's speaking of the eternal communion with _all_ the saints which we enter into in worship, both in the Word and Sacraments.

Still one can see how Augustin, by reflecting the views of his day, might show how the church had a trajectory that unchecked or corrected took it into the darkness of sacerdotalism.

It would also help to read more of his quotes in context, and to read what thoughts were his mature reflections (he wrote a whole book of "Retractions"). I don't recognize any quotes above from anything he may have written specifically on the sacraments.


----------



## Dean (Feb 4, 2005)

Augustine beleived in the substantial presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic elements: 

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10). 

He also says that the consecrated Host is to be "adored." In Latin this is latria. Dulia and hyper-dulia is honor given to the saints. But latria (adoration) is worship given to God alone. In other words, he believes we are to worship the Host as God.

Augustine also says that the Eucharist is signifying or symbolizing the Body and bl**d. This is definitely no proof that he did not believe in the substantial presence of Jesus, especially in light of the fact that the RC also uses the terms "signs" and "symbols." 

Just because transubstantiation was not dogmatically defined until the 12th century does not mean that the basic principles of it were not believed before then. In fact all the post-nicene Fathers believed that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and bl**d so that the elements only appear to be bread and wine after consecration.

Augustine is very clear that Jesus is "immolated" (which means killed and sacrificed) "every day"...

"In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters).

This, however, is the one and only sacrifice of the cross as the RC believes. The k*lling and sacrificing of Christ is "made present" in the sacrament. This is offered to God under the sacramental signs of bread and wine. This is thoroughly Catholic. He even believed that the "Mass" was to be offered for the [email protected] (common belief dating back to the 3rd century): 

”For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that prayers for those who have died in communion of the Body of and bl**d of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the Sacrifice itself; and the Sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf” (Sermons).

Augustine was thoroughly Catholic and shows no signs of a Reformed Protestant. How in the world can he be in heaven? I must conclude that he is condemned in hell with all the other papists. He believed in none of the Reformed distinctives.

Dean

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Dean]

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Dean]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 4, 2005)

Dean,
There are people here on this board with vastly more expertise in early church matters than I, and one at least that I know is thoroughly acquainted with Augustin. He and they can answer your questions better than I, and they doubtless will.

Let me say a general thing or two:
1) You may be surprised to see Augustin in heaven. I won't be. Your analysis is pretty shallow and one dimensional. Do you really dislike Augustin, or are you simply using him for your own purpose, whatever that is?

2) Most of the quotes you've provided are short and contextless, and come from several different sources. Most of us don't share your encyclopedic knowledge of Augustin, so could you please give us more material in context to work with?

3) It is possible to hold to errors with regard to the sacraments (especially in germinal form) and to yet have hold of the true gospel. Is this not true for Christians down through the centuries? Even today, in lousy churches? Augustin's grasp of the gospel was demonstrated for all time by his battles with the Pelagians and his other writings. Rome's greatest error was her jettisoning of Augustin's gospel (and she did jettison it, and anathematized its adherents at Trent), and replacing it with a sacerdotal theology and idolatry.


> Just because transubstantiation was not dogmatically defined until the 12th century does not mean that the basic principles of it were not believed before then. In fact all the post-nicene Fathers believed that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and bl**d so that the elements only appear to be bread and wine after consecration.


4) Actually it was in the 9th century that we find the earliest attempt at regulating the "fluctuating" opinions regarding transsubstatiation, by one Ratramnus. He was immediately opposed by Radbertus and others. According to Cunningham, "all the most respected theologians of the day adhered to the more reasonable view." So, as soon as someone takes in hand to systematize and regulate this view, he is directly contradicted. It takes 800 years to get to this point. Claiming that all was harmony prior to this point is gratuitous.

5) Then the following categorical assertion, "all the post-nicene Fathers believed..." is astounding. How do you know this? All the ones you have read? All the ones who happened to write on the subject, or touch on it? I'm sure you'll understand if we reserve judgment on this point.


> Augustine was thoroughly Catholic and shows no signs of a Reformed Protestant. How in the world can he be in heaven? I must conclude that he is condemned in hell with all the other papists. He believed in none of the Reformed distinctives.


This closing paragraph is anachronistic. Of course Augustin was "catholic". He was bishop of Carthage in an era that knew only one church, from Gibraltar to Britain to Syria to Ethiopia--the universal one, and one I might add where there was no universal allegiance to Rome or any other primate, even if Augustin deferred to him. So much for the "papist" slap.

(And his deference was far from the powers claimed later by Rome. It is incredible that Augustin would have accepted an appointment to the Carthage bishopric from the Roman bishop, when he was called by the church of Carthage to be its pastor. Now _that's_ pretty Reformed in principle, even though such claiming that he was "Reformed" here would be anachronistic--so we avoid it.)


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dean_
> 
> 
> Augustine was thoroughly Catholic and shows no signs of a Reformed Protestant. How in the world can he be in heaven? I must conclude that he is condemned in hell with all the other papists. *He believed in none of the Reformed distinctives*.
> ...



Original sin, total depravity, predestination of the saints (that was a title of one of his books, wasn't it?); darned papist. I think Warfield's quote is timely on the Reformation being a triumph of grace in Augustine whereas the Catholic Church was a triumph of the sacraments in Augustine.



[Edited on 2--5-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Dean (Feb 4, 2005)

I think the quotes on the Sacrifice of the Mass are enough to prove he believed it. The Protestant historians I have read agree. 

I have read EVERY Father on the Lord's Supper. The Real Presence was a universal belief and was not questioned until the 9th century. All the talk from Calvin on this has been refuted by modern scholarship.

hourse,
Original sin, total depravity, predestination of the saints are NOT Reformed distinctives. These doctrines have been held (in their Augustinian form) by theologians of the Dominican and Augustinian orders in the Catholic Church for thousands of years.

Dean


----------



## yeutter (Feb 5, 2005)

*sacrifice and the Eucharist*

The idea that in some sence the Sacrifice of our Lord was represented does seem to be a common if not universal position held by the Church Fathers from the time of Athanasius on.
What different Fathers have meant by this has not always been the same.

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by yeutter]


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Dean_
> 
> 
> hourse,
> ...



Provide quotations and sources, please. This is good stuff, I am going to use this against my Catholic pseudo-apologists relatives.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> One cannot remain under the mass with knowledge of its intent. Its devil worship and blasphemy against Christ's work.



Dr. McMahon sounds like a historicist...  

yippie...


----------



## DTK (Feb 6, 2005)

> Just because transubstantiation was not dogmatically defined until the 12th century does not mean that the basic principles of it were not believed before then. In fact all the post-nicene Fathers believed that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and bl**d so that the elements only appear to be bread and wine after consecration.


There is so much of what you posted needs to be addressed. Most of the Augustine quotes look like something right off a Roman apologist's web site. For instance, the reference for one quote as "Letters" is vague--> "In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters).

But I do want to address one of your assertions for now...


> You wrote: Just because transubstantiation was not dogmatically defined until the 12th century does not mean that the basic principles of it were not believed before then. In fact all the post-nicene Fathers believed that the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and bl**d so that the elements only appear to be bread and wine after consecration.


No, all of the post-nicene Fathers did not believe that. In fact, Gelasius, a Bishop of Rome (492-496), no less, explicitly denied that...


> *Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492-496):* Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord’s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. (_Tractatus de duabus naturis_ 14 [PL Sup.-III. 773]) See Francis Turretin, _Institutes of Elenctic Theology_, 3 Vols., trans. George Musgrave Giger and ed. James T. Dennison (Phillipsburg: reprinted by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1992), Vol. 3, p. 479 (XVIII.xxvi.xx); and Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in _Studia Patristica_, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997).
> 
> *Latin text:* Certe sacramenta, quae sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Jacques Paul Migne, _Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium_ 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: Editions Garnier Freres, 1964).


The Jesuit scholar Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. (a Romanist notice) observed this himself: "According to Gelasius, the sacraments of the Eucharist communicate the grace of the principal mystery. *His main concern, however, is to stress, as did Theodoret, the fact that after the consecration the elements remain what they were before the consecration*." Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., “The Eucharistic Theology of Pope Gelasius I: A Nontridentine View” in _Studia Patristica_, Vol. XXIX (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), p. 288.

One ought to be very careful about making sweeping statements such as "all the post-nicene Fathers believed...such and such," because they were very diverse in their sentiments on these issues. Here are some quotes from Theodoret proving Kilmartin's point about him...

*Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466):* Orth. — You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord. _NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue II.—The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes_.

*Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Hebrews 8:4-5:* It is clear to those versed in divine things, however, that it is not another sacrifice we offer; rather, we perform the commemoration of the one, saving sacrifice. The Lord himself, remember, required this of us, “Do this in memory of me,” so that we should recall with insight the type of sufferings undergone for us, kindle love for the benefactor and look forward to the enjoyment of the good things to come. Robert Charles Hill, _Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul_, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), pp. 169-170.

Moreover, it is manifest from what Jerome said in the following quotes about Holy Scripture, he didn't believe that the elements were changed into the actual body and blood of Christ...


> *Jerome (347-420) on Psalm 147:* We read the Holy Scriptures. I believe that the Gospel is the body of Christ. I believe the Holy Scriptures to be his doctrine, and when he says, He who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood, although this may be understood of the mystery, yet the word of the Scriptures and the divine doctrine is more truly the body of Christ and his blood. If at any time we go to the mystery, whoever is faithful understands that if he falls into sin he is in danger; so if at any time we hear the word of God, and the word of God, and the flesh of Christ, and his blood poured into our ears, and we are thinking of something else, how great is the danger we incur. See George Finch, _A Sketch of the Romish Controversy_ (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 170.
> *Latin text:* Legimus sanctas Scripturas. Ego corpus Jesu, Evangelium puto: sanctas Scripturas, puto doctrinam ejus. Et quando dicit, qui non comederit carnem meam, et biberit sanguinem meum: licet et in mysterio possit intelligi: tamen verius corpus Christi, et sanguis ejus, sermo Scripturarum est, doctrina divina est. Si quando imus ad mysterium, qui fidelis est, intelligit, si in maculam ceciderit, periclitatur. Si quando audimus sermonem Dei, et sermo Dei, et caro Christi, et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur, et nos aliud cogitamus, in quantum periculum incurrimus! _Breviarium in Psalmos_, Psalmus CXLVII, PL 26:1258-1259.
> 
> *Jerome (347-420):* Moreover, forasmuch as the flesh of the Lord is true meat, and his blood is true drink anagogically, we have only this good in this life, if we eat his flesh and drink his blood not only in the mystery, but also in the reading of the Scriptures. George Finch, _A Sketch of the Romish Controversy_ (London: G. Norman, 1831), p. 170.
> *Latin text:* Porro, quia caro Domini versus est cibus, et sanguis ejus versus est potus, juxta anagogen (Gk), hoc solum habemus in praesenti saeculo bonum, si vescamur carne ejus cruoreque potemur, non solum in mysterio (Eucharistia), sed etiam in Scripturarum lectione. _Commentarius in Ecclesiasten_, Cap. 3, PL 23:1039.


Sweeping statements don't make for credible reporting. How many of these post-nicene fathers have you actually read? 

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 7, 2005)

With regards to the sacraments, Augustine was not a Papist but a Lutheran -- thoroughly so, with respect to both baptism and communion. It is no coincidence that Luther was an Augustinian. (With respect to soteriology, Augustine was as much a Calvinist as the apostle Paul.) Bruce is right that Augustine's day knew nothing of the the blasphemy that the Roman mass later became. To associate Augustine or any other 4th century Christian with that abomination of the papacy is both slanderous and ignorant. That said, I heartily disagree with Augustine's sacramentalism regarding both the supper and baptism because I heartily disagree with Luther. Of course, I happen to disagree with Calvin on both points as well. It must be recalled that the Roman church, though in decline for centuries, continued to be a true church until Trent.


----------



## Peter (Feb 7, 2005)

Yes, from those quotes it unfortunately appears Augustine implicitly denied the real humanity of Christ by asserting transubstantiation but I see nothing of the popish mass in the quotes you've provided. There is nothing wrong with seeing the Lord's Supper as a figurative eucharistical sacrifice however the Popish Mass undoes the once for all sacrifice for sin by teaching it is another expiatory sacrifice for additional forgiveness of sin.


----------



## DTK (Feb 7, 2005)

I think we must be careful to guard against ascribing to Augustine a doctrine of transubstantiation. Augustine must be read carefully and in context. As a specimen example, I want to post a complete sermon of his below as a demonstration. Augustine's sermons were not characteristically this short (this one is just two pages in the Rotelle series). But it demonstrates how he can be misread if one stops reading and draws conclusions upon seeing one or two statements. In the sermon I post below, notice that the way he begins you would verily think he is affirming a view close to transubstantiation, but as you read the whole sermon (and again, it's very brief) you see that he means a spiritual presence of Christ in the eucharist, for he says that *we* are Christ's body on the table, and *we* are Christ's blood, and thus he could not have been referring to a corporeal presence...


> SERMON 272
> 
> ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST TO THE INFANTES, ON THE SACRAMENT
> 
> ...


On another occasion, when Augustine is asking how we may lay hold of Christ, you would expect him to affirm that that may be done so in the celebration of the eucharist, i.e., if he believed in transubstantiation. But notice, he repudiates the notion that the absent Christ is ascertained by any other means than faith...


> *Augustine (354-430):* Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, *How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold.* Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him. _NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate 50, John 11:55-57, 12:1-11, §4.


Moreover, elsewhere in his _Tractates on John_, he denies explicitly the notion of a corporeal feeding on Christ in the eucharist when he states...


> *Augustine (354-430):* “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. *To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.* _NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate 25, §12.


And again in his commentary on the Psalms...


> *Augustine (354-430):* It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.” It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said unto themselves, He saith not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learnt that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learnt. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. *But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.* _NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms_, Psalm 99 (98), §8.


You can't simply assume that when Augustine describes the bread as Christ's body and the cup as Christ's blood, that he means thereby a corporeal presence. He's only affirming the words of Holy Scripture; and then in exposition, explaining the spiritual significance of them.

Let's read Augustine carefully.

Cheers,
DTK

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by DTK]

[Edited on 7-2-2005 by DTK]


----------

