ROMAN CATHOLICISM IN LIGHT OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

XV. Catholicism’s Continual Sacrifices Versus Christ’s Finished Sacrifice

(Hebrews 9:25-28)

I. Introduction

A. A number of our Church members have come from Roman Catholic backgrounds, and they often seek support in Biblical truths that counter the strong, errant indoctrination they faced in their past.

B. The epistle to the Hebrews was written to counter the errant traditionalism of first century Judaism that was similar in theological thrust to much of Catholicism, so we study Hebrews for edification in this matter.

C. The author of Hebrews in Hebrews 9:25-28 contrasted the Aaronic high priest’s need to offer the blood of animals every year in the Holiest of Holies versus Christ Who offered His own blood once for all as Mediator of a better covenant. In doing so, the passage critiques Catholicism’s teaching on the continual sacrifices of the Mass versus Christ’s finished sacrifice. We view this passage for insight, application and edification:

II. Catholicism’s Continual Sacrifices Versus Christ’s Finished Sacrifice, Hebrews 9:25-28.

A. The Catholic Church holds that salvation in part comes by observing the repeat sacrifice of Christ in the Mass:

1. In Catholicism, the “‘Mass is the sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, really present on the altar under the appearance of bread and wine and offered to God for the living and the dead.’” (“A Catechism of Christian Doctrine,” cited in Loraine Boettner, Rom. Cath., 1978, p. 175) “In the . . . mass the Roman priest becomes an ‘Alter Christus,’ that is, ‘Another Christ,’ in that he sacrifices the real Christ . . . and presents Him for the salvation of the faithful and for the deliverances of souls in purgatory” (Ibid., p. 174).

2. Also, the Baltimore Catechism says: “‘It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason.’” (Ibid., p. 183)

3. Furthermore, “Cardinal Bellarmine . . . considered one of the foremost authorities, says: ‘No one can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that he has received a true sacrament, since no sacrament is performed without the intention of the ministers, and no one can see the intention of another.’ (Works, Vol. 1, p. 488)” (Ibid., p. 179) In other words, if a priest “does not have the right intention in doing what he professes to do the sacrament is invalid,” Ibid. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, a layman may then be served communion by the priest but have it be of no value for his salvation if the priest’s intention was not good, and no one can be sure of the priest’s intention in any particular mass that he officiates!

B. However, Hebrews 9:25-28 counters Roman Catholic beliefs on the communion observance (as follows):

1. Though the Aaronic high priest entered into the Holiest of Holies each year with the blood of animal sacrifices to atone for his own sins and for the sins of Israel’s people, Christ did not do so often, v. 25.

2. Had Jesus needed to offer a sacrifice often in the heavenly tabernacle, He would needed to be sacrificed often on the cross, Hebrews 9:26a.

3. However, Christ offered Himself “once for all” (hapax, Theol. Dict. of the N. T., vol. I, p. 381) at the end of the present age, and He appeared to put away sin by that sacrifice of Himself, Heb. 9:26b. In other words, Christ’s single sacrifice of Himself on the literal cross of Calvary fulfilled the atonement for sin.

4. Therefore, since it is appointed unto men “once for all” (hapax again, U. B. S. Grk. N. T., 1966, p. 765) to die, and after that the judgment, so Christ was “once for all” (hapax once again, Ibid.) offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them who look for Him will he appear the second time without having to handle the issue of sin, but to appear for the deliverance of believers from this sinful world, Hebrews 9:28.

Lesson: The single, finished sacrifice of Christ on the cross of Calvary “once for all” settled the issue of the payment for all the sins of every sinner in history, that when anyone believes in Jesus Christ for eternal life (John 3:16), he is forever unconditionally, eternally saved. (John 5:24) There is thus no efficacy for handling sin for salvation in observing the Lord’s Table, failure to attend an observance of the Lord’s Table in a meeting is not a mortal sin, observing it does not work one’s salvation, the officiating minister is not Another Christ who sacrifices Christ anew nor does the intent of the officiating minister affect the relationship of the man in the pew with God!

Application: (1) May we rest and rejoice in the finished work of Christ on the cross. (2) May we realize that observing the Lord’s Table is meant only to remind us of the centrality and finality of our Lord’s atonement for us, that our observance of the ordinance is an act of worship, not a work to contribute to our salvation! (3) May we not concern ourselves with the role or the intent of the presiding minister, for that role or intent has no bearing on our salvation or on our relationship with the Lord, but may we instead focus on our worship of our Savior!