TRADITION VERSUS THE IDEA OF THE CATHOLIC MASS AS SACRIFICE
The Mass is the Roman Catholic rite in which bread and wine are believed to be
turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ on the altar by the priest.
Jesus during his last supper said over bread, "Take and eat . This is my body
given up for you." And over wine, "Take and drink. This is my blood shed for the
pardon of sins. Do this in memory of me." The priest re-enacts this during Mass
thus causing the alleged transformation of bread and wine into Jesus who is
presumed to be God in human flesh.
The Mass however is considered to be principally a sacrifice. The death of Jesus
for sinners so that they might be forgiven is supposedly made present at Mass
when the bread first and then the wine are changed. It is made present for the
priest and the congregation to offer it to God. Christians are paying for
their salvation with the blood of Jesus. They are paying for it by his murder
and agony. It is striking how fanatical and extreme and barbaric and evil
this doctrine is.
The doctrine really comes from tradition rather than the Bible.
The Jewish leaders followed both tradition and the Old Testament scriptures.
The Catholic Mass comes from Catholic tradition for there is no evidence that
priests have the power to offer the sacrifice of the Mass from the Bible. In
Matthew 23:2,3 Jesus tells the people to obey the scribes and the Pharisees and
all they teach but not to copy them. Jesus then here was encouraging their
tradition as well for that was a part of their religious practice and they were
strict about it. But in Matthew 15 he said that they taught the ideas of men as
doctrines from God and if they contradict the word of God with their tradition
they prefer their tradition instead and condemned this as evil. How can these
two assertions be made to fit together?
Two answers are possible.
Jesus meant that you obey the scribes and Pharisees even when they teach false
doctrine for it is safer to listen to them than not to for now and this is
expediency and not an indication that tradition is good or safe.
Jesus meant that you obey the scribes and the Pharisees but not their
traditions.
Neither answer allows us to make tradition equal to the Bible.
The scribes and Pharisees were only adhering to traditions they didn’t make
themselves. There was every reason why they thought the traditions must be the
word of God too for just because something is tradition doesn’t mean it is wrong.
Then the Catholic can’t argue, “When Jesus condemned tradition he condemned them
for making things up as they went along not tradition like our Catholic
tradition that has been handed down from previous generations for the Church
can’t be blamed for making them up now even if it has done.”
Most of the traditions were not inventions but reasoned from the Old Testament.
Jesus was not condemning the Jewish traditions because he thought they were
wrong. They couldn’t have been all wrong. What he was against was making human
reasoning and interpretation equal to the authority of the Old Testament
scriptures. The Roman Catholic Church certainly teaches that its own tradition
is equal to the Bible, Old and New Testaments both. And it claims that much of
this tradition is just what was practiced from the start of the Church and was
not reasoned or developed from embryonic and undeveloped doctrines in the Bible.
If Jesus condemned traditions created as deductions from scripture how much more
would he condemn traditions from the constant practice of the Church? And the
Church knows fine well that that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of
the Blessed Virgin and her assumption into Heaven and prayers to saints to name
a few cannot even be traced to the first few generations after the apostles
never mind the apostles themselves even though the Church claims that God
stopped revealing his word with the death of the last apostle. The Church
doesn’t give new revelations but claims it only clarifies existing revelation.
Some say it was different for the Catholic Church to have and follow tradition
and declare it equal to the Bible for unlike the Jews Catholicism is blessed
with infallibility and Christ promised to look after his Church forever. But
Catholicism doesn’t use its infallibility much. It was only used three times in
the twentieth century when Pius XI declared contraception wrong, Pius XII said
that Mary was assumed into Heaven and John Paul II declared that the Church had
no authority to ordain women. Most Catholic tradition is still out there
circulating around there circulating around without the full stamp of
infallibility.
The prime source of Tradition, St Aurelius Augustine, said the Eucharist was
a sacrifice but he never mentioned it being the sacrifice of the cross. His
silence is loud. "28. ‘While we consider it no longer a duty to offer
sacrifices, we recognise sacrifices as part of the mysteries of Revelation, by
which the things prophesied were foreshadowed. For they were our examples, and
in many and various ways they pointed to the one sacrifice which we now
commemorate. Now that this sacrifice has been revealed, and has been offered in
due time, sacrifice is no longer binding as an act of worship, while it retains
its symbolic authority. . . Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of
this sacrifice were fore-shadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ
the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ,
this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament.’ Philip Schaff, Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV, St. Augustin: The Writings Against the Manicheans
and Against the Donatists, Reply to Faustus the Manichean 6.5, 20.21 (New York:
Longmans, Green, 1909), pp. 169, 262.
29. ‘For, as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same
office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ. This is the sacrifice of
Christians: we being many, are one body in Christ. And this also is the
sacrifice which the Church continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar,
known to the faithful, in which she teaches that she herself is offered in the
offering she makes to God. . . . For we ourselves, who are His own city, are His
most noble and worthy sacrifice, and it is this mystery we celebrate in our
sacrifices, which are well known to the faithful. . . . For through the prophets
the oracles of God declared that the sacrifices which the Jews offered as a
shadow of that which was to be would cease, and that the nations, from the
rising to the setting of the sun, would offer one sacrifice.’ Philip Schaff,
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. II, p. 230-31. St. Augustin: The City of
God and On Christian Doctrine, The City of God Book 10, ch. 6; Book 19, ch. 23
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), pp. 184, 418.