The Mass as a Sacrifice

One of the greatest difficulties Protestants have with the Catholic Church is the teaching that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice.  The Church does teach that the Mass is a real and true sacrifice, a sacrifice which propitiates for sins because it is the sacrifice of Christ who alone can make propitiation for sins.  The idea that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice is offensive to Protestants for three primary reasons.  First, it seems to suggest that Christ’s offering on the cross was insufficient to save us from our sins.  Second, because Christ is the victim in the sacrifice of the Mass, it seems to require Him to die again and again.  Finally, another difficulty Protestants have is that the Scriptures clearly teach that Christ was sacrificed once for all (Heb 7:25-27, 9:24-26, 10:10-14). One thing to consider about this last objection is that the phrase ‘once for all’ is a shortened statement of one of two things. It could either mean once for all time, or it could mean once for all people. The phrase itself doesn't specify.  In fact, the adverb used here does not actually say once for all, but simply 'once.' Translators put "for all" in  to clarify the statement, but it is really reading into the text.  Nevertheless, it is still a troubling point for most Protestants. 

Bishop Fulton Sheen, a popular televangelist of the 1960s and 1970s, once said that there were not one hundred people in America who hated the Catholic religion, but there were countless who hated what they mistakenly thought the Catholic religion to be.  If Catholicism really were what these people thought it was, he pointed out, Catholics would hate it too.  This statement is especially significant here.  Each of these objections is founded on a misunderstanding of what the Catholicism teaches about the Mass.  This misunderstanding is that the Mass is a different sacrifice from the cross.  In fact, it is not.  The Mass is understood to be the very same sacrifice of the cross re-presented in a different manner:

“[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption.  But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once and for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.”(Council of Trent Session 22, Chapter 1)

“And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner, the holy Synod teaches… this sacrifice is truly propitiatory….  The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.”(Council of Trent Session 22, Chapter 2)

There are many other important things to consider in these quotations.  One is that the sacrifice of the Mass exists because Christ’s priesthood was not to end with his death.  This is a point which is explained by Hebrews 7:23-24:

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. 

Another point is that the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice: Christ does not die again in the sacrifice. Most people tend to think of a sacrifice as a death, as though it is the death of the sacrificial victim which constitutes a sacrifice.  Therefore, it is common for the sacrifice of Christ to be reduced to His death alone.  However, the death of the victim is only the first part of a sacrifice, with the presentation of the sacrifice being the second, more important, part. If an Old Covenant priest had slain an animal and then failed to present it to God, there would have been no sacrifice.  Christ's sacrifice was presented to the Father when His risen body ascended into Heaven, and is continually presented so long as Christ is there in Heaven with the Father. The death of Christ was in our time, but the presentation is not and can not be by definition. 

Simply by being present in Heaven, Christ is presenting Himself to the Father. Hebrews 9:24 makes reference to this, saying, “For Christ has entered… into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.”  This is why the book of Hebrews says that Christ “is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” (7:25)  This intercession is not a different work from the sacrifice. It can't be, because that would mean that His sacrifice was not sufficient. Protestant commentators stress this point.  The intercessory work of Christ is not a different work from His sacrifice; it is part of the sacrifice.  It is the eternal presentation of Christ before the Father. This appearing as a perpetual presentation is so that He can perpetually be propitiation for our sins, as 1 John 2:1-2 says.

 

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

The verb 'is' here in “He is propitiation” is in the present tense, meaning that Jesus is currently the propitiation. Protestant Greek commentators are often very perplexed by this because they cannot understand how Christ could currently be propitiation, since Protestant theology understands Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to be the only propitiation for sins.  It is correct to understand Christ’s sacrifice as the only propitiation for sins.  However, it is incorrect to understand the death on the cross to in and of itself be the sacrifice.  It is because Christ’s sacrifice consists of both the death on the cross and His eternal presentation to the Father that John can write that He is currently the propitiation for sins. 

The eternality of Christ’s presentation is made clear by other Scriptures as well.  As was already cited, Hebrews 9:24 says that Christ “now” appears in the presence of God “on our behalf.”  There is the ongoing work of intercession in Hebrews 7:25, intercession which is a part of His sacrificial work.  In Revelation 5:6, He is depicted as “a lamb, standing as though slain.  He is in Heaven a slain lamb, a sacrificial victim, yet He is standing because He is risen.  Heaven is not bound by time, it is in eternity. Hence, elsewhere in Revelation He is called the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).  The reason John can say He was slain before the foundation of the world even though He clearly died at a given moment in the first century is because His sacrifice is an eternal one, a sacrifice which is in its Heavenly part (the presentation) present in eternity.  For this reason, men like Moses and Elijah, who appeared at the transfiguration, could be saved even though Christ had not yet died.  The propitiation of Christ’s sacrifice is eternally present in Heaven and thus was efficacious even for men living before the incarnation.  Hebrews 4:3 works along the same theme, stating that God's works were completed "from the foundation of the world." The Mass is no more contradicting the once for all nature of Christ's offering than His earthly death on the cross was contradicting the fact that God's work was already done before the foundation of the world, and that Christ was already slain before the foundation of the world.

Reading Hebrews 9:24-26 in this context, the nature of Christ’s sacrifice becomes much clearer:

For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

It is the suffering which occurred once for all, never to be repeated. Christ's once for all offering, however, is perpetual and eternal. In fact, it could even be said that the reason it is once for all is because it is eternal; one cannot repeat something which has no beginning and no end.  Given all of the statements the Scriptures make concerning the eternality of Christ’s presentation, it is clear that Hebrews cannot possibly mean that Christ's offering was a one time, momentary act.  Rather, it is the suffering which was a one time and momentary occurrence, which is why the writer to the Hebrews explicitly states that Christ’s suffering would have been required to happen again were He to be sacrificed again.

When the writer to the Hebrews speaks of the offering in this passage, he is referring specifically to the high priest having to go in and out of the Holy of Holies. That is why he writes, "Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own." That is also another reason why he emphasizes the suffering so much. When sacrifices were made in the Old Covenant, the priest would slaughter the animal outside of the Holy of Holies and then enter into it. It was by the blood of this slaughtered animal that the priest could enter the Holy of Holies, so if Christ were to go in and out of the Heavenly Holy of Holies, He would have to suffer each time, but He does not, because "he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood" Once Christ is in the Holy of Holies, His presence before the Father is the presentation of the sacrifice to the Father.   The actual killing of the animal in the Old Covenant was only part of the sacrifice - the other part was the presentation, which Jesus accomplished at the Ascension.

The Mass is a Sacrifice because it re-presents that eternal sacrifice by making it present on the altar of the Church.  The Sacrifice of the Mass is simply the ongoing, eternal offering of Christ in Heaven.  Hebrews is such an important book in terms of the Mass because it was written to explain the superiority of the New Testament sacrifice to the old sacrifices, and in chapter 8 it provides further insight into the nature of the Mass:

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. (1-3)

Even though He is sitting down, Christ is still a minister. He is still offering that one sacrifice which is made once for all; otherwise He would no longer be a minister. In fact, the passage makes this clear by stating that it is necessary for Him to have something to offer.  Just like ‘is’ in 1 John 2:2, the verb ‘have’ is present tense, meaning it is currently occurring: Christ currently must have something to offer. (If He had only had something to offer at one time, an aorist or more likely a perfect tense would have been used.) This passage teaches that Christ's offering is going on even now, and that He is still ministering at the Heavenly altar.  It is this present offering which is made at the altar at the Mass. This is the altar Hebrews refers to in saying, “we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.” (13:10)  This reference to the priests of the Old Covenant having no right to eat at this altar shows that the writer had in mind an earthly altar on which this sacrifice was presented.  He could not have meant, by referring to eating from this altar, to be speaking symbolically of spiritually receiving Christ or the salvation His sacrifice earned, because these priests had as much a right to receive these things as those who were receiving them.  All persons have as the same right to salvation through Christ.  (In fact as Christians we understand that nobody has a right to salvation, but nonetheless all who come to Christ in faith may receive it).  There truly is an altar which Christians alone may eat from, and this is the altar of the Mass.  

The only text that still may seem problematic for the doctrine of the Mass is Hebrews 10:10-14:

And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Some believe that because this passage teaches that Christ is sitting and waiting, He cannot be offering an eternal sacrifice as the doctrine of the Mass teaches.  However, as has been pointed out, Christ presents Himself to the Father simply by being present in Heaven.  In fact, He could not be in Heaven and without presenting Himself to the Father, because He is there in eternity as a slain lamb (Rev 13:8). 

The problem with verse 14 is that it doesn't translate into English well at all. The Greek text says, literally, “For by a single offering He has perfected into continuity the being sanctified.” The Greek word that is translated in most Bibles as "those who are being sanctified" is αγιαζομενους (agiazomenous), a present passive participle. It is a verb form being used as a noun substantive. The actual word doesn't actually include ‘those’ or ‘the ones’ or anything of that sort. It is translated into English with those words added so that it makes sense in English. The Greek language uses participles like this quite often, but they do not translate well.  In the original language, the verse says only that the process of being sanctified is perfect. Αγιαζομενους, the being sanctified, is in the accusative case, which means that it is the object of the verb ‘perfected.’ However, the verb 'perfected' does not apply to the "those who are" or "the ones who are"; it only applies to "the being sanctified," the process of sanctification which is applied to the ‘those.’  This is taught by Hebrews because in the Old Covenant, a person could offer all the proper sacrifices for sins, they could do everything they were required to and the process could fail because it was imperfect. This verse teaches that the process now is perfect thanks to the sacrifice of Christ and will not fail as long as a person remains in the process. This is perfect given that overall theme of Hebrews of the superiority of the New Covenant sacrifice over the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

That the Mass is a re-presentation of the eternal sacrifice of Christ is also evident from the Last Supper accounts.  The last supper was the Passover meal. Passover meals, then as now, had a very specific "program." This would involve the reading of particular Scriptures, singing of particular hymns, and the consecration and drinking of four cups of wine. The Gospels record this meal progressing as normal. The third cup was the one Christ raised and said, "This is the New Covenant in my blood."(Luk 22:20) This can be seen by studying the gospel accounts and because Paul refers to the cup of the Lord's Supper as "the cup of blessing" in the first letter to the Corinthians (10:16), which was the name given to the third cup of the Passover meal. After this, the Passover called for the singing of a hymn (called the Great Hallel, which consists of Psalms 114-118) before drinking from the fourth cup, which was called the "cup of consummation."

However, Jesus didn't drink from the fourth cup. Instead, the gospels say that after blessing the third cup, Jesus specifically said He was not going to drink wine again until He did so “anew in the Kingdom of God.” (Mark 14:25)  Immediately after this it says that "when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives." (25) This would have been a major defect in the Passover meal, not a minor omission.  The fourth cup was so important that the Passover meal was not complete until it was drunk.  After this, in Gethsemane, Jesus asks the Father to let the cup pass from Him (Matthew 26:39). When a no doubt very thirsty Jesus was offered wine while carrying the cross up to the mountain, He refused (Mark 15:23).  Jesus finally drank vinegar (a type of wine) from the hyssop branch and said "it is consummated" at the moment of His death. The ‘it’ meant the Passover meal. That Passover meal which He had began the previous night and never finished He was now complete.  It could not have ended until then, because the fourth cup of wine had yet to be drunk. 

The sacrifice was not begun on Calvary. Calvary began with the Passover and the Passover ended with Calvary (see A Father who Keeps His Promises, Scott Hahn, Servant Books 1998, p. 234; a more thorough analysis of the above facts is also available therein) This ties together a number of items which pertain to the Last Supper and its having been a Mass. 

First is the sacrificial language Jesus used during the Last Supper.  The Greek word translated ‘remembrance’ in Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11 is anamnesis, which has great sacrificial overtones. There are at least 9 other Greek words for ‘remembrance’ which could have been used, however this sacrificial word was chosen instead.  In fact, anamnesis can literally mean ‘memorial sacrifice’; it is used this way in the Greek Old Testament and is often translated this way in English Bibles.  Hebrews 10:3, where it is also used in a sacrificial context, is the only place in which the word is used in the New Testament: "But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year." The passage would actually make much more sense if anamnesis were  translated as it is in the Old Testament here, so that it would read: "But in these is a memorial sacrifice for sin every year." In fact, in the original Greek it does not say "but in those sacrifices," because the word ‘sacrifices’ is not in the text.  It is added because without it the passage makes no sense in English.  Rendering the word consistently here cleans up the passage immediately, cutting the need for translators to add words to Scripture.  The Greek word for "do" used in these passages, ‘poiein,’ is also a word with sacrificial overtones, used over 75 times in the Old Testament to mean ‘offer.’ It would be a completely accurate translation of 1 Corinthians 11:23 (and Luke 22:19) to render Jesus' words as "offer this as a memorial sacrifice of me," and in fact, Jewish readers who were very familiar with the Septuagint would very likely have understood it this way.

Second is the Jewish understanding of the Passover meal. Many Jewish traditions believed that those who were eating the Passover were not simply remembering the first Passover, but were literally taking part in the literal, one time event of the first Passover. They were understood to be literally taking part in the Exodus as if they were there themselves in Egypt following Moses to the promised land.  This is extremely interesting because the redemption is extremely parallel to the Exodus. There are countless parallels. This is because the Exodus from physical bondage was a foreshadowing of the true Exodus from spiritual bondage that is found in Jesus Christ.  Jesus is called the Lamb of God because He is the Passover lamb that was sacrificed to save the firstborn from death.  When a person enters into Christ through baptism, he or she becomes a child of God (Mat. 5:9, 5:45, Luk 6:35, 20:36, John 12:36, Rom. 8:14-15, 8:23, 9:26, 2 Cor 6:18, Gal. 3:26, 4:5-6, Heb. 12:7-8)  The paschal sacrifice of the lamb saved the lives of the firstborn of the people of God during the first Passover, and now the sacrifice of the Lamb of God saves the lives of all children of God.

There are many other parallels as well.  Like the Passover lamb, Christ was to be without blemish (Ex 12:5 / Heb 9:14).  The Passover lamb was examined on the 14th day of Nisan to ensure that it was unblemished, and Christ was examined on the 14th day of Nisan with no fault being found in Him (Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6)  The Passover lambs’ bones were not to be broken, just as Christ’s bones were not broken (Ex 12:46, Num. 9:12 / John 19:36)  The blood of the Passover lamb was put on the posts of the Israelite’s doors, and the blood of Christ was put on the post of the cross. (Ex 12:7)  There are other parallels beyond this, and many other connections that are not strictly parallel.  For instance, it was a hyssop branch that was to be used to spread the blood of the Passover lamb, and it was a hyssop branch that was used to give Jesus a drink of wine on the cross (Ex 12:22 / John 19:29).

  

Other traditional Jewish aspects of the Passover were also incorporated into the sacrifice of Christ and the Last Supper.  One example is the breaking of the Afikoman, which is the second of three cakes of unleavened bread which were eaten during the Passover meal.  In many Jewish traditions, the bottom cake was understood to represent Abraham, the top cake to represent Jacob, and the middle cake, the Afikoman, to represent Isaac.  While God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son Isaac, (Gen 22:10-12) the Father Himself did allow His son to be sacrificed.  It was the Afikoman that would have been broken during the Passover celebration when Christ broke bread, saying, “This is my body which is given for you.” (Luke 22:19)  The Mass extends this parallel, because just as the Afikoman was broken and all would eat a piece of the one bread during the Passover, so too is the Eucharist, the body of Christ, broken and given to all to eat during the Mass.  In fact, the parallel between the sacrifice of Christ and the Passover makes it necessary that Christians eat of Christ’s body, because the Passover lamb was required to be eaten by all after its sacrifice and no part left over. (Ex 12:8-10, 34:25, Num. 9:12)  Therefore Paul writes, “Christ our Passover lamb is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast...” (1 Cor 5:7-8)

 

Jesus' sacrifice began at the Last Supper, and was the eternal Passover sacrifice that can be experienced today through a literal participation at the sacrifice of the Mass, just as the ancient Jews literally participated in the Exodus by their Passover meal. The Last Supper was the first Mass in which Christ first made present on Earth His eternal sacrifice.  (More information on the Last Supper being the beginning of Christ’s sacrifice can be found here.)

God Bless,

Shane Coombs 2006

The Meaning of Christian Priesthood

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and God created man in His own image, and God saw everything He had made, and behold, it was very good.  Yet in spite of such glorious and auspicious beginnings, man could not carry on more than a brief moment before the terrible ignominy of sin had torn asunder his relationship with the loving Creator to whom he owed his very being.  Since that time, the life of every human being has been driven by the great, often misunderstood longing to cross the threshold that sin has wrought and return to the loving embrace of Our Father.  The means to this reconciliation, somehow revealed by God to those first transgressors, has been handed down since the time of Cain and Abel, and so all men everywhere have always known that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus has the priest always been the constant fixture in all cultures, punctuating every period of human history.  He – or in those places where men had exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images, she – has, in every place stood daily at service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins, until, in the fullness of time, God sent forth His Son to become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Therein lies the distinctiveness, the dignity, and the importance of the priesthood of Christ, which is the priesthood of the Church of God.  Men have sought since time immemorial to turn to God, and have employed the services of the priest for just as long.  However, only when God Himself became a priest in the person of Jesus Christ could such a ministry achieve its intended end.  Jesus Christ is our high priest, and He now continues His ministry through the hands of those men whom He calls to serve in His person at His Altar.  While Christ serves in the Holy of Holies of Heaven, the men of the ordained priesthood perpetuate His ministry on earth, making present to the people of God His one, eternal offering to the Father.  They serve not as priests in their own right, but by participating mystically in His one eternal priesthood, and as such, a true appreciation, and any real understanding at all, of the ordained priesthood can only be found in an appreciation and understanding of Christ Himself.

How the Confiteor "Really" Goes

You know the Confiteor, right?  The prayer in which we acknowledge our sins in preparation for the Liturgy at the start of Mass?  Of course you do:

I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and words, in what I have done and have failed to do, and I ask the blessed Mary, ever Virgin, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

But wait - did you know that that's not really the whole thing?  This is actually only a shortened version that was introduced into the Liturgy with the release of the reformed Missal in the early 1970s.  The version of it that is said in the Extraordinary Form (the "old Tridentine Mass") is longer, richer, and in my opinion more beautiful.  It also really makes you feel guilty for your sins - in a good way.  In other words, it at least makes me recognize more fully that yes, my sins are in fact bad - they're sins - and not simply flaws or imperfections.  Of course, the point isn't to be riddled with guilt or to become scrupulous, beset with anguish over my many tiny sins.  Rather, the point is to realize that I am responsible for my sins and that I have a true need for repentance. This is the "full" version - go ahead and try to recite it without starting to recognize that, hey! - I should take repentance more seriously:

I confess to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to you, my brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed (strike the breast 3 times), through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore, I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and you, brethren, to pray for me to the Lord our God. Amen.

 Wow!  Here's another question for you: have you ever gone home and actually prayed for the congregation's sins after Mass?  Have you ever even made a quick mental prayer for them all in the moment after the Confiteor is recited?  If so, then very good for you indeed!  I would suspect, however, that most of us have not.  I confess to personally never thinking about it again after this part of the Mass has moved on.  After all, praying for an entire congregation of people we don't know is not only hard to remember, but if we wanted to pray for everyone individually, as we ask in the prayer, it would take quite a while.

The original form of this was actually a little different, and it may shed some light on this whole subject.  You see, originally this Confiteor above was said only by the priest.  He asked the congregation to pray for him, both in general, and as he began the holy work of offering the Mass.  Then, after this, a second Confiteor was said asking the priest to pray for the people, this time replacing "brethren" with "Father."

Comparing the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite

As we move forward into the second decade of the 3rd millennium, there is, in the midst of discouragement, a lot of hope for the Church. The primary sign of hope is an ever growing - even rapidly growing - mass of dedicated, orthodox young people seeking to live for Christ and His Church. It is also the case that many of these are found to be more traditional in their approach to prayer and Liturgy. This has prompted a good deal of discussion over the Liturgy and how it is best celebrated. In particular, with Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum authorizing more widespread use of the "traditional Latin Mass" or the "Tridentine Mass" as it is variously called, it's not uncommon to find oneself in a discussion over the merits of this "older" Liturgical rite. I thought it worthwhile to take the time to try to bring a little bit of light to the subject. Before I begin, there are a few preliminary points worth mentioning.

First, it's very important that we speak of both rites of the Mass with the reverence and respect due to the Holy Sacrifice. Whichever rite is celebrated, it is still the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the greatest act in which a human person can participate. It would be grievously problematic to speak contemptuously of either.  It is my belief that part of this involves what we call these various rites. While no disrespect may be intended in using terms such as the "Traditional Latin Mass," the "Tridentine Mass," the "Novus Ordo," or the "Pauline Mass," they are not consistent with the way the Holy Father wishes us to view these Liturgies. He has declared that from henceforth the "Tridentine Mass" is to be referred to as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and the "Novus Ordo" as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Pope Benedict's reasoning for this is very important: both of these Liturgies are fully and entirely an expression of the Liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, differentiated only by their form. This is critically linked to a key concept that Benedict has stressed throughout his ecclesiastical career: that the Church's traditions and Liturgies exist in a unbroken continuity and that we must view things through a hermeneutic of continuity rather than one of rupture. When we give the Mass a name like the "Novus Ordo," we are speaking of it as if it were something new and thereby do not give it the full respect it deserves as an authentic development of the Liturgy instituted by Christ. Similarly, when we say something like "Traditional Latin Mass" about the Extraordinary Form, we present it as though it is something old and replaceable, or indeed, replaced.

Second, in no way do I consider the Ordinary Form to be superior to the Extraordinary Form - nor the other way around. It is my belief that each is superior in its own ways and inferior in others. All people considering this question should keep in mind that the decision to reform the Liturgy in the first place was made in an Ecumenical Council under the mantle of the Holy Spirit. The decision was not made for no reason, but because to at least some degree, a reform was necessary. This does not in any way imply that the Liturgy in use at the time of this decision was bad. Rather, it simply means that 500 years of doctrinal development and cultural change - some for the better, some for the worse - left the Liturgy in need of some adjustments. Indeed, these two factors have prompted the reform of the Liturgy at various points throughout history, some reforms being more substantial and others more of the character of minor tweakings.

Catholics are certainly free to debate whether a major reform was necessary in the 1960s. Some may believe that it was not. Personally, I am of the belief that a reform may well have been necessary for one simple reason: the world changed more in the 50 years leading up to the Second Vatican Council than it had in the 1,000 years preceding that. While the Church must not change in its substance with the world - truth is not defined by culture - It does need to update some of its external approaches to better proclaim the Gospel in the individual ages in which it may find itself - the way truth is received by persons does change with culture. This is nothing new, of course; the Church has been updating it's approach based on the contemporary culture for 2,000 years. While this article is primarily focused on the Church's Liturgy, it is helpful to point out that I firmly believe that the Second Vatican Council was the antidote to many of the things that have plagued the Church for the past 40 years. John XXIII - now ranked among the Blessed, let us not forget, believed that some changes were necessary in order for the Church to effectively save souls in the 20th century. My belief, which may be the subject of a later discussion, is that without those decisions made at the Council, the Church would find herself in a far worse position today than she does. The Council's saving effects are, in my belief, only now becoming manifest because on the one hand, it takes time for any changes to bear fruit, and on the other, unfortunately the Council was not properly implemented.

I happen to be one of the results of this Council. I wouldn't be Catholic if it weren't for Vatican II and it's reforms of the Liturgy. I would suggest that many others, such as the well known scholar Dr. Scott Hahn (himself responsible for countless conversions) wouldn't be either. All that being said, it is time to bring this aroung to the Liturgy and to examine some of the different aspects of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Liturgy.

Latin versus the Vernacular

It is important to recognize the value of having a sacred language. Indeed, to this day the Jewish people cling to Hebrew as a tie to God Himself, and it is considered by many to be one of the reasons that the Jewish race and culture has survived to this day. A Sacred language also helps to add an important sense of mystery and holiness to Liturgical celebrations. It helps people to realize that what they practice and experience in the Liturgy is tied to the transcendent, and that it is set apart from what they do in the rest of their lives. This is related to the importance of having a common language. With a common language, it doesn't matter where one gos in the world, as the Liturgy will be the same. God is universal, and His Church is universal, and so there is great benefit in being able to attend Mass anywhere in the world without needing to speak the local language. It also ties the people of God together. For these reasons and others, I think that the use of Latin as a sacred and a common Liturgical language is wonderful and critical to preserve.

However, I also think that the restriction of the Liturgy to Latin alone is harmful. In the first place, this was never really the intent of the Church. Latin was originally introduced into the Liturgy precisely because it was the vernacular language at the time. Everybody knew it. It was the English of the first millenium. Latin was made the language of the Church so that everybody could understand the Liturgy. As the centuries went on, the Church expanded and the collection of languages used by Catholics became more diverse, it was helpful to maintain the use of Latin as a common language, and indeed, that sense of the sacred became imbued in it.

However, something can also be lost in excluding the vernacular from the Liturgy. When there is only Latin, the only option for most is to follow along in a missal. Not only can this be distracting (I know college professors who don't want students to bring their textbooks to class for just this reason), but more importantly, "faith comes through hearing" (as St. Paul wrote). This is why in we're not supposed to be reading along in a missal or missalette. It's one of the most common (albeit minor) Liturgical abuses today. It's better for people to hear all of the prayers, acclamations, and so forth than for them to have to read along with them. Now, prayers and acclamations can be learned. The chief problem lies in the reading of the Scriptures in Latin. Traditionally, the readings were read only in Latin with no vernacular repetition. Eventually the Church granted permission for the Gospel to be repeated in the vernacular (and this is what most older Catholics today likely remember from their childhood), but this is clunky and seriously detracts from the prayerful flow that is so important to the Extraordinary Form. One of the tremendous advantages of the Extraordinary Form is that it has the sense of a single, uninterrupted ritual of prayer, an advantage which is hampered by being unable to present some of the more appropriate portions in the vernacular.

The Ordinary Form permits all, part or none of the Mass to be said in either Latin or the vernacular, and so Masses can be offered entirely in Latin for those who would most benefit from it, entirely in the vernacular for those who would most benefit from it, and for the vast majority of us, as a combination of each, allowing the advantage of attention and hearing to be complimented by the advantages that Latin has.

Problems with the Presentation of the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass

Theologically speaking, this is one of the most areas in which I believe the Ordinary Form has the greatest advantage. The basic problem here is that the text of the Extraordinary Form can be somewhat confusing and/or ambiguous when it comes to the fact that the Mass is a Sacrifice. This may come as a surprise as this is usually the very opposite claim that is made against the Ordinary Form! To illustrate my point, consider this text (translated into English) from the Extraordnary Missal:

Accept, O Holy father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen

The problem with this otherwise profoundly beautiful prayer is that it takes place well before the Consecration of the Host. In other words, at this point the priest has bread and wine on the altar - not the Body and Blood of Christ. Certainly, there is a sense in which we do offer the unconsecrated bread and wine to God not unlike the offerings of the firstfruits in Levitical law. The Ordinary Form more explicitly refers to this point in the "Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation" prayer (which many people may be unfamiliar with if they have not attended a daily Mass), and in fact this is the point: the Ordinary Form makes it clear that at this point in the Liturgy, we are making a secondary offering to God, one of the bread and the wine, whereas the Extraordinary Form can easily give the impression that that more important Sacrifice is taking place with unconsecrated bread and wine. The language is very strong for bread and wine, with references to offering it in atonement for sins, for the dead, and so on. Bread and wine do not take away sins: the body and blood of Christ do.

This is of course only one example of the larger difficulty. In the Extraordinary Form, the concept of sacrifice appears 16 times. 12 of these occur before the consecration. In other words, the fact that what is going on here is a Sacrifice is mentioned 3 times more when bread and wine are present than when the Body and Blood of Christ is.

In the Ordinary rite, a much less confusing ratio can be found. Eucharistic prayer I is an almost identical copy of the Extraordinary Form's, and so the same problem can be found: a total of 12 mentions with only 3 coming after the Consecration. However, if one uses Eucharistic prayer IV, there are 4 mentions before and 4 after the Consecration. Eucharistic prayers II and III are less desirable, but the former of these is directed to be used only for daily Masses.

This may seem convaluted to some, but t I honestly think is a real problem. We don't offer the Father bread and wine in the Mass. The Mass is the Mass because we offer the Father the Body and Blood of Christ. Consider that many of the great spiritual writers have taught us that there is a far greater danger in presenting truth mixed with falsehood or ambiguously than in presenting pure falsehood. Pure falsehood will be recognized and rejected, but mixing truth and falsehood or presenting truth in a confusing manner can often leave a question as to just where the truth lies. In view of this, I see a real potential danger in presenting the truth that a Sacrifice is occuring in such a way that it can leave a question as to just what is being Sacrificed.

In fact, this is precisely one of the reasons that the bishops at the Second Vatican Council asked for a reform of the Liturgy. Even prior to the Council (as early as the 1950s), one very well respected Liturgist lamented that it was "well known" that the people of that time had lost the idea that the Mass was a Sacrifice, citing some of the problems mentioned here. Correcting these was one of the goals of the Liturgical reform.

Some of these prayers are worse than others. For example, another part of the offertory reads, "Come Thou, the Sanctifier, Almighty and Everlasting God, and bless + this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy Name." Clearly, the intent of the prayer is good and proper. The problem is that it sounds (or reads) to the average Mass-goer as though the Sacrifice has already been prepared - even while it is merely bread and wine. Whatever the intent, the way it is presented is problematic.

At the same time, the Extraordinary Form has a lot of tremendous material in the Mass of the Faithful (what is known as the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Ordinary Form). it is much longer (in a good way), more beautiful, more rich in symbolism and and conveys the majesty of what is taking place. The extended invocations of the saints are much appreciated.

Lectionary and Liturgical Calendar

This one's pretty simple. Catholics get to hear a lot more of the Scriptures in the Ordinary Form. The Calendar is also much more clearly organized, with clearer delineations between levels of Liturgical celebrations. In the pre-Vatican II calendar, there was hardly a day without some kind of special celebration.  In the current calendar, memorials and feasts of saints seem to carry more meaning because they are not an everyday occurrence.

"Participation"

First and foremost, the ability of the people to hear the Consecration is, in my opinion, of tremendous importance. In the Extraordinary Form, the Consecration is to be said silently. While it's easy to think of what would hopefully rare and unusual problems with this (e.g., some have complained that they want to be able to hear the Consecration to ensure that the priest is doing it properly and that they truly are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ), I simply think it is right for the people to hear it. Christ gave His Body and Blood for all, not for the apostles only. The words "This is My Body" should be heard by all, in my opinion. In fact, this is tied closely to the fact that the priest offering Mass acts in persona Christi - in the person of Christ. It is Christ who offers the Mass, and the faithful should be ever aware of this, realizing just what they are watching and, hopefully, deriving great spiritual benefit from it.

Another concern is that of the way that each form engages the participation of the faithful. There are two sides to this issue. On the one hand, all of the time the celebrant spends "on his own" in the Extraordinary Form lends itself wonderfully to silent prayer. This is very profound, and certainly greatly desirable. On the other hand, that prayer is a prayer which is in a certain sense detached from the Mass itself. The greatest prayer of all is taking place at the altar. The faithful should be engaged in this, treating it with the greatest of all reverence.

Of course, the participation called for in the Ordinary can be taken too far or overdone. At times, there is almost no room for one to join his or her personal prayer to the intentions of the Mass. This is, of course, more of a problem with the way the Mass is celebrated and not with the Ordinary Form itself, which calls for times of silence. I believe that at its core, the idea of bringing the faithful into a more "focused" - for lack of a better term - worship in the Mass is a good thing. It must simply be done in the right way.

Some Miscellaneous Points

The ad orientem celebration (when the priest offers Mass facing "away" from the people) is, in my opinion, by far the single most important difference one is likely to see when attending the Extraordinary Form. It cannot be understated what benefits come from this. First and foremost, it rightly orients the mind of the priest, bringing him to recall at every moment that each word he utters is in prayer to the Almighty and not as a statement for the faithful to hear. Second, it rightly orients the congregation, bringing them to recognize that the priest is praying to God and, indeed, offering sacrifice to Him. Of course, this can be done in the Ordinary Form, but almost never is. It is beautiful, it puts the Sacrifice, the transcendence of God, and the role of the priest all in wonderfully striking perspective. I believe it should be the exclusive posture for celebrating Mass.

The Extraordinary Form also has many other beautiful prayers, symbols, and actions that help to express the depth of what is actually taking place. More than that, because the Mass is an objective reality and not merely a collection of symbols, these truly accomplish what they represent. For example, the Extraordinary Form contains a tremendous amount of preparation. Before the Mass even begins, the priest stops before approaching the altar to ask forgiveness for his sins and to prepare to approach the altar. How wonderfully this demonstrates how serious an action he is about to undertake, and indeed, how important is it that the priest truly does prepare himself for the holy things he is about to do. It really is very beautiful and theologically profound.

In the end, I would love to see a Liturgy that combines the great elements of each of the two forms we have now. Nonetheless, we must always remember how great what it is that we do have. Whatever form of Mass you find most spiritually enriching, go!

God bless!