William Gouge on the sacrifice of the Mass

[Reformed Covenanter]

Their [Rome’s] unbloody Sacrifice (as they style it) of a feigned transubstantiated body, is far worse then if they had such Sacrifices of beasts and fowls, as were under the Law. Those sacrifices, at that time, did set out the virtue of Christ’s death, and nourish their faith and hope in the benefits thereof. But the fore-said Popish sacrifice would take away the virtue and efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, if it could be taken away.

For I demand, whether the sacrifice that they pretend to offer up, be the very same, that Christ himself offered upon the cross. If they say, the same, what need is there that it should be offered up again? Was not Christ’s once offering of it up sufficient? The Apostle doth assuredly intend as much by his frequent mention of this word once, which is exclusively to be taken: once for all, and not to be reiterated. If it be another sacrifice, then the sacrifice of Christ was not perfect. ...

For more, see William Gouge on the sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

How would one answer the modern day assertion by Romanists that it is simply the "re-presentation" of Christ's once-for-all-sufficient sacrifice, and that it is not a re-sacrificing or a diminishment of that one sacrifice?

 

[Zach]

How would one answer the modern day assertion by Romanists that it is simply the "re-presentation" of Christ's once-for-all-sufficient sacrifice, and that it is not a re-sacrificing or a diminishment of that one sacrifice?

I'm glad you asked this and am curious to hear the answers. I was preaching from Hebrews 9 a few weeks ago and debated whether to bring in the Reformation critiques of the Mass on that point, specifically in the Heidelberg Catechism. But it was reading the Catholic Catechism on the Mass on that very point you raise that led me to leave that out (probably for the better to stay on my main point!). It got me thinking about whether the language used by Catholic theologians has changed since the Reformation and I almost posted a thread to ask about it. So, thanks for asking!

 

[Taylor]

How would one answer the modern day assertion by Romanists that it is simply the "re-presentation" of Christ's once-for-all-sufficient sacrifice, and that it is not a re-sacrificing or a diminishment of that one sacrifice?

It seems to me to be something akin to Rome’s ridiculous, idolatry-enabling distinction between latria and doulia. Besides, even if they would say they are not “re-sacrificing” Christ, the pagan witchcraft we call transubstantiation is alone enough to condemn the Mass. And that is not even to mention their prayers for/to the dead, their worship of Mary, and their false gospel, among a myriad of other soul-destroying error.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Not sure why "representing" is any "better"? It's still superstitious nonsense. There is nothing that needs to be represented, the work is finished. Also, unless something has changed they still bow to the elements as if it's actually Jesus.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Indeed

It seems to me to be something akin to Rome’s ridiculous, idolatry-enabling distinction between latria and doulia. Besides, even if they would say they are not “re-sacrificing” Christ, the pagan witchcraft we call transubstantiation is alone enough to condemn the Mass. And that is not even to mention their prayers for/to the dead, their worship of Mary, and their false gospel, among a myriad of other soul-destroying error.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

I'm glad you asked this and am curious to hear the answers. I was preaching from Hebrews 9 a few weeks ago and debated whether to bring in the Reformation critiques of the Mass on that point, specifically in the Heidelberg Catechism. But it was reading the Catholic Catechism on the Mass on that very point you raise that led me to leave that out (probably for the better to stay on my main point!). It got me thinking about whether the language used by Catholic theologians has changed since the Reformation and I almost posted a thread to ask about it. So, thanks for asking!

Unofficially, Catholic teaching has not changed. I believe talk of re-presentation and "unbloody sacrifice" can be found as far back as Trent. But unofficially there has been a real shift in the tone of Catholic teaching esp. since Vatican II.

On the one hand, Catholic teaching has always been nuanced and thoughtful, perhaps more than Protestants give credit for. It's certainly more nuanced than the unfortunate simplistic stereotypes adhered to by many Protestants. Catholic thinkers were well aware of the potential pitfalls of their theology, and Protestant accusations, and did answer them. So they were aware that we accuse them of adding works to salvation, of destroying the sufficiency of Christ's death on the cross, etc. and they did answer these things.

On the other hand, the teaching, while carefully thought out, is still inadequate and now more than ever riddled with internal contradictions and ambiguities. It's almost impossible to get a Catholic to see this though, because of the blind faith placed in the authority of the church.

I think that the best way to argue on this point would simply be to not give ground to the Catholic answer. Catholics insist that their theology does not undermine the sufficiency of Christ's death on the cross. I would simply have to respond that it does and go from there. Not much of an argument, but there's little room for reason and logic in these debates.

I'd love to hear any success stories of arguing with Romanists on this point, if anyone has them.