Questions about the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass

This text is from two letters written by David Gooding in 1989.

Thank you for explaining theological aspects of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass. I am sure you will not mind me saying that your use of theological terms—and indeed the use of such terms even in the official document of the Roman Catholic Church—leave me very puzzled.

You say, for instance, that the sacrifice of the Mass is a 'sacramental offering'. Later you say that, in the context of offering the Mass on behalf of the dead, the offering of the Mass is a particularly powerful intercessory prayer. And then again, that the offering in this context is a sacramental perpetuation, not a repetition of the one unrepeatable event of Calvary. May I therefore ask a few questions in order to clarify my mind as to what these terms actually mean?

The term 'sacrament'

What is a sacrament? Does the New Testament ever use the term? Or, if it does not use the actual term—in Greek, I mean—does it anywhere define or at least describe a sacrament? Or is it, as I suspect, a term invented in later centuries by the church, without any basis in the New Testament? In classical Latin, sacramentum means an oath. What does it mean with you? What is the difference between 'an offering' and 'a sacramental offering'? Are they, both of them, offerings?

You say that the victim of the Mass does not shed his blood; what is referred to as 'sacrifice' here is a sacramental offering; during the sacrament, the past becomes effective in the present; thus the 'immolation' here refers to a living sacrifice, not a blood sacrifice, as Calvary was.

But may I ask you, is a living sacrifice itself a sacrifice, or not? If, as you say, a living sacrifice is a sacramental perpetuation of the sacrifice of Calvary, then it must be the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of Calvary. How can a perpetuation of the same sacrifice be a different kind of sacrifice?

The term 'offering'

Where in the New Testament are we told to offer the bread and the wine to God, or to ourselves? The Lord\'s words are, 'take, eat. . . and drink'; not 'take, and offer this'. Where, then, do you get the authority from to turn the bread and wine into an offering?

I know that twenty years ago Catholic and high church theologians seized upon the term anamnesis—do this in remembrance of me—and tried to suggest that in the Septuagint this word has a sacrificial meaning. But even Catholic theologians nowadays have dropped this idea, because it is not valid; and anyway, why should we need to remind God of the sacrifice of Calvary? Does he ever forget it and need to be reminded? But if it is only we who need to be reminded, why should we need to offer the sacrifice of the Mass to ourselves?

In Hebrews 10:17-18, the Holy Spirit points out to the believer that, because the new covenant guarantees to him that God will remember his sins and iniquities no more, 'there is no more offering for sin'. The Greek word for offering is prosphora. This word can mean one of two things. It can mean 'an offering' in the sense of 'a thing offered', that is, 'a sacrifice'. But this cannot be the sense in which the Holy Spirit uses the word in this verse; for, if this were the sense, the verse would mean that, since we have forgiveness, we do not have to offer an additional sacrifice; additional, that is, to the sacrifice of Christ—and the very thought of offering an additional sacrifice would be preposterous.

And so the word here must have this second meaning, namely, 'offering' in the sense of 'the process of offering'. The verse is saying that Christ, having offered one sacrifice for sins forever, is no longer engaged in the process of offering anything: he has sat down. That is, he has ceased the work and process of offering, in contrast to the Jewish priests who constantly stood because, for them, the process of offering was never finished. And again, the verse is saying that, because through Christ's sacrifice the believer already has complete forgiveness of sins, the believer does not have to engage in the process of offering in order to obtain forgiveness of sins.

But as I understand it, and indeed the Curia, a person is engaged in the process of offering every time they offer the Mass. You say that the Mass is a perpetuation—though not a repetition—of the offering of Christ; and if words mean what they say, you must mean that the process of offering Christ's sacrifice is perpetuated. The process is maintained: the process is still going on. Can you see, therefore, that to me this seems to be contradicting the Scripture in Hebrews 10, which says explicitly that the process of offering the sacrifice of Christ has ceased?

It does not help me much to be told that, while the Mass perpetuates the sacrifice of Christ, it is not exactly the same sacrifice, because the sacrifice of Christ was a blood sacrifice and the Mass is an 'unbloody sacrifice'. In that case, the Mass is not the same sacrifice as was offered at Calvary, and the process of offering the Mass is not a perpetuation of that sacrifice at all.

To help explain your view of the relationship between the Mass and Christ's sacrifice at Calvary, you use the analogy of a mirror. The mirror, you point out, only reflects the sun's light, but it is the same light that is reflected. A mirror, you suggest, is analogous to the Mass.

But how sound is the analogy? The sun in the sky is a present, active phenomenon. When its light reaches me via a mirror, of course, it is the same light as set out from the sun about eight minutes earlier, but the sun is still there and still shining. It is possible that one day the mirror of my telescope might pick up light from a star, which has in fact already ceased to exist. It is not still shining itself; its shining has ceased. Only the light has taken such a long while to reach my mirror that I see that star as if it were still existent. Any astronomer would warn you against the mistake of thinking that what you see in your telescope is the star still shining. All you are seeing is an event that happened long ago and has ceased to happen.

What then about the sacrifice of Christ? Scripture seems to me constantly to repeat the fact that his sacrifice does not continue. It has finished. The Lord's Supper simply reminds us of an event that happened long ago and is not now happening.

Mass as an 'intercessory prayer'

You say that, when you offer the sacrifice of the Mass on behalf of the dead, this offering is a powerful intercessory prayer. Where does the New Testament say that? Was it not, after all, the Lord Jesus who instituted the Lord's Supper? Did he ever tell us to use it as a prayer? Of course, as you already perceive, I do not believe in purgatory. I hold that Scripture teaches that a believer, when he or she dies, departs to be with Christ (see Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8). But what concerns me here is why it is necessary to offer God anything at all in order to prevail upon him to let departed loved ones out of purgatory. What does the offering of the Mass to God do to God more than the finished sacrifice of Christ has already done?

Preaching as a 'mystery'

You say that the Latin word sacramentum is the equivalent of the Greek word mystērion, and you quote the statement of the New Testament to the effect that the apostles were 'stewards of the mysteries of God'. But I am puzzled when you say this clearly includes preaching. You do not mean, do you, that the process of preaching is one of the mysteries? I understand from passages like Ephesians 3:3 that the mystery revealed to Paul was the full message of the Christian gospel, i.e. Christian doctrine. In that same chapter, he remarks that he has written to them about that mystery. But the process of letter writing and the subsequent reading of the letter by the believers at Ephesus were not themselves part of the mystery, were they? And Paul's physical act of preaching was not part of the mystery either, was it? The mystery of which Paul talks in Ephesians was a mystery that had been hidden from generations (see Ephesians 3:5). He cannot mean, can he, that preaching as a means of communicating God's truth had been hidden for many generations and only recently revealed to the apostles? Can you find me any Scripture that says that the act of preaching is part of the mystery?

I think you will see the point of my question, for the same thing applies to the recalling of our Lord's death at the Eucharist. Where does Scripture say that the recalling of his death is a mystery, or even a part of a mystery?

I hope with all my heart that we two may meet in heaven. What would worry me is that you seem to entertain some doubt about it. You say that the dead in purgatory are there because in life they did not surrender completely to Christ. What is this surrender that you speak of? Is it a work we have to do, that is to be done totally and correctly before it qualifies for the gift of eternal life? I believe in all humility that I have been justified and am already completely accepted with God, and on that ground I have peace with God and the absolute assurance that I shall be saved from the wrath of God and shall attain the glory of God (see Romans 5:1–11). That is why Scripture describes justification as an absolutely free gift (see Romans 3:24); and that is why all believers can have the assurance that Paul had, that to be absent from the body is to be immediately at home with the Lord (see 2 Corinthians 5:6–8). Do you not have that assurance yourself? And if not, why not?

Believe me, these matters are for me not simply discussions about theological niceties. They go down to the very roots of my heart. This assurance given by God to the believer is for me one of the most wonderful things in the salvation that God has provided for us. One day you must tell me, if you will, why you seem to lack this assurance and to regard it as impossible.

Yours sincerely,