The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his075/cath32.lzh/CATH32.TXT

Text File | 1991-06-30 | 26KB | 461 lines

CUL:The Mass: From Mystery to Meaning  by James G. McCarthy

   Copyright 1988

   My stomach was in full flight as we waited for Mass to begin. How
embarrassing it would be if I forgot what to do! Nervously I rehearsed
my Latin. But I had made up my mind; I was going to be an altar boy.
The priest was calm. The other boy, a veteran, was entertaining himself
looking through a mirrored window at the people.

   At last the nod came. The heavy door to the altar opened. As we
walked out in procession, I pulled the gold chain on the bell above the
entryway. Why did I ever get myself into this?

   It wasn't the altar boy picnic at the end of the year. That drew
many recruits, but for me the attraction was deeper. I was aware of the
respect I would receive from my family. Also, becoming a priest was a
possibility. This could be the first step. Then there was the grace I
would receive from God. The richly paneled sacristy, where I had donned
my lack cassock and white surplice, even smelled holy. Soon I would be
handling the water and the wine, and assisting in Holy Communion after
those awesome words: "Hoc est enim orpus meum - For this is My body."

   As the bell clanged, the entire congregation rose to their feet.
Pretty heady stuff for an 11-year-old.

   I served Mass for four years. In the second year, the Latin Mass
came to the end of its 1500 year history. I had to relearn all the
responses in English. It was hard work but a big improvement.

   Having attended Mass most of my life, I understand the reverence
that every Catholic has for this sacrament. As a youth it was woven
into the fabric of my life. Yet as an adult, my attendance often lacked
meaning. As I sought a clearer understanding of this mystery, my search
led me to the Sacred Scriptures. There God exhorted me, "Examine
everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good." I tested my
beliefs against the standard that God has provided: the Bible.

   I found that the heart of the issue is the interpretation of Jesus'
words, "This is My body....this is My blood." Four major passages
record the events of the Last Supper during which Jesus spoke these
words. Three are in the gospels. The fourth account is given by Paul,
who was not present at the supper, but received a revelation directly
from the Lord. In addition there are several short references in Acts
and 1 Corinthians. John 6, where the Lord speaks of himself as the
"bread of life," should also be considered. How are we to interpret
Jesus' words: "This is My body"? To answer this we must decide whether
he was speaking in plain or figurative language. Plain speech is just
what it sounds like: plain. It is non-figurative. For instance, we
might say, "It is raining one inch per hour." This is stating the facts
in plain language. However, we could have said, "It's raining cats and
dogs!" This is figurative language. Jesus used both types of language
on the night of the Last Supper.

   Following the supper, he said, "These things I have spoken to you in
figurative language; an hour is coming when I will speak no more to you
in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father."
Whether we take Christ's words to be spoken in plain or figurative
language will determine our view of the Eucharist. The Plain View This
is the interpretation held by the Catholic Church. It is often referred
to as the Doctrine of the Mass. It teaches that when Jesus spoke the
words: "Take, eat; this is My body....this is My blood," he turned the
bread into his body and the wine into his blood. This is called
transubstantiation. It means that the substance is changed. The
Catholic Church understands Jesus' words to mean, "This has become My
body....this has become My blood." Although the outward appearance
remains that of bread and wine, the real material or essential nature
has been changed. This is done so that the priest can then sacrifice
Christ on the altar. It is an "unbloody sacrifice," but one in which
Christ is actually "immolated" or killed. The bread wafer is referred
to as the "host." This word comes from the Latin word for victim. The
offering of the host makes satisfaction for the sins of the living and
the dead. Those receiving Holy Communion eat the body of Christ.
Participation is essential for spiritual life, central to Catholic
experience, and important for salvation.

   At the Last Supper, Jesus said, "This is My body....this is My
blood." The plain view interprets the verb "is" in its most usual way:
showing that two things are equal to each other. For example, a young
man showing his first car to his family might proudly announce, "This
is my car." The Figurative View This interpretation takes Jesus' words
symbolically. He indeed wanted his followers to regularly take bread
and wine, but for the purpose of remembering him; that is, to think
about and praise him for the sacrifice of his life. The bread and wine
are symbols. The bread reminds us of his body which was broken for us.
The wine reminds us of his bloo which was shed for our sins.

   The figurative view understands Jesus' words as, "This represents My
body....this represents My blood." It interprets the verb "is" in
another of its regular uses: showing that one object represents
another. An example of this might be the same young fellow mentioned
above, later that day, explaining to his father over the dinner table
how he crashed his new car. Arranging the plates and utensils to
represent the scene of the accident, he picks up a spoon and,
crestfallen, says, "This is my car." His words are identical to those
spoken earlier, but now he is speaking figuratively.

   Context is the key. In both cases, those listening immediately knew
how to interpret the young man's words: "This is my car." He spoke the
same words twice. The first time he meant them in a plain sense. The
second time in a figurative sense. His words are similar to Christ's at
the Last Supper. In which sense did Christ speak? We shall see that the
context is the key to a correct understanding. The following four
reasons are why I concluded that the figurative view is the correct
interpretation of Jesus' words, "This is My body."

   1. Jesus' Teaching Style

   The Jews often spoke in figurative language. The Lord Jesus, being a
Jew, was no exception. John records in his gospel seven figurative
statements that Jesus made about himself. Each uses the same verb
translated "is" in the words "This is My body."

   Jesus said, "I am the bread of life," "I am the light of the world,"
"I am the door," "I am the good shepherd," "I am the resurrection and
the life," "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," "I am the true
vine." All of these are figurative. The last two were even spoken the
night of the Last Supper in the upper room. At other times, he referred
to his body as a temple, new life as living water, his disciples as
salt, and the Pharisees teaching as leaven. In Matthew we read: "All
these things Jesus spoke to the multitudes in parables, and He did not
speak to them without a parable." A parable is the comparing of one
thing with something else. It is figurative language. This is not to
say that everything Jesus said was figurative, only that he often
employed figurative language to teach truth. We should not be surprised
to find figurative language at the Last Supper. A study of that night's
teaching, as recorded in John 13-17, will demonstrate that throughout
the evening he used many figures of speech. He referred to the cup
figuratively, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood." The cup was
not the actual covenant but symbolic of it. The passage continues "For
as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the
Lord's death until He comes." Surely we are not to drink the cup! This
is a figurative reference to the wine inside the cup. Note also that
this verse refers to the substance eaten as "bread," not a body. In the
Gospel of Mark, after Jesus said, "This is My blood," he referred to
the substance as the "fruit of the vine," or wine, not blood. This is
the context of the passage we are examining. It is filled with
figurative language. His figurative teaching style was often
misunderstood. He was surprised by the lack of discernment of his
listeners. They seemed unable to tell when he was speaking of spiritual
truths.

   When he said, "Destroy this temple," they thought he meant the
building. When he referred to the "leaven of the Pharisees," they
thought he meant bread. When he told the woman at the well of the
living water, she wanted to see his bucket. And when he spoke of eating
his flesh and drinking his blood, they argued, grumbled, and left in
disgust.

   This last incident is recorded in John 6. Because the Catholic
Church uses this passage to interpret Jesus' words at the Last Supper,
we shall take a closer look at it.

   2. John 6

   This chapter begins with Jesus miraculously feeding a great
multitude. The following day, he says that he can give "food which
endures to eternal life." This resumes a dispute with the Jewish
authorities concerning Jesus' identity. His earlier teaching had caused
the Jews to rightly conclude that he was "making Himself equal with
God." He had even said that he could give life to the dead.

   In John 6, the Jews continue to resist Jesus' claim of being divine.
They challenge him to prove this by bringing down manna from heaven as
Moses had. Jesus takes their reference to the manna, the food which was
essential for life in the wilderness, and applies it figuratively to
himself. He answers, "I am the bread of life."

   In the debate that follows, he uses bread to illustrate the truth
that they have refused to accept: belief in Jesus is essential for
spiritual life. First he states the matter in plain language, "He who
believes has eternal life." Then he states it in figurative language,
"If anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever." In his analogy,
Jesus uses eating to represent believing. This can be seen again in a
following verse. Jesus went on to say, "He who eats My flesh and drinks
My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
Moments earlier he had said, "For this is the will of My Father, that
everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal
life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

   Notice that the results are identical in both verses: eternal life
and resurrection. But although in the one we must eat and drink, in the
other we must behold and believe. Since the results are identical, we
should understand that the actions to obtain them are also identical:
eating represents believing. His figurative statements are easily
understood when read in the context of the other verses in the passage.
But we should not read into this passage a reference to the Eucharist.
The reason is once again context. The circumstances in John 6 and the
Last Supper are different. Yes, Jesus refers to bread in both, but
there the similarity ends. In John 6, he is speaking to those who
reject him as the source of eternal life. He uses bread as an analogy
to illustrate man's need to believe in him. At the Last Supper, he is
among his 11 true disciples. There he is instituting a commemorative
meal using bread and wine. Wine isn't even mentioned in John 6. As we
understand how different the two events are from each other, it becomes
clear that we can't use John 6 as a foundation upon which to rest our
interpretation of the Last Supper. But this is exactly what the
Catholic Church does. Let's examine five verses that they commonly use.

   In John 6:51, Jesus predicts, "The bread also which I shall give for
the life of the world is My flesh." This is interpreted by the Catholic
Church as a promise of the Eucharist. Yet the context has nothing to do
with the Last Supper or physical bread.

   Earlier, Jesus had identified himself as the bread of life. Here he
says he will give the bread, that is himself, his very flesh, for the
life of the world. This is an accurate description of what he did on
the cross. He is predicting his death. Many times near the end of his
life he made similar predictions. This interpretation fits the context.
By the sacrifice of his life, Jesus became the Savior of the world, the
source of eternal life.

   In John 6:52, the Jews begin to argue with one another, "How can
this man give us His flesh to eat?" Because of their antagonism for
Jesus, they not only rejected his teaching but lacked the discernment
to understand when he was using an illustration.

   In John 6:53, Jesus states, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves."

   Rather than teach the necessity of receiving Holy Communion, it
speaks of the necessity of faith in Christ. If you don't trust in his
payment for sin on the cross, you will not have eternal life in
yourself.

   In John 6:54 he said, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has
eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." We have seen
that "to eat" is "to believe," and that the giving of his flesh refers
to his death on the cross. And so, "to eat his flesh" or "to drink his
blood" would be to believe or claim by faith the sacrifice of his life.
It is to rely upon his death on the cross as the payment for our sins.

   Finally, in John 6:55, he said, "For My flesh is true food, and My
blood is true drink." To understand this as teaching that Christ is
bodily present in the host is to interpret it out of context. Here
again, Jesus is emphasizing that he is the source of real spiritual
life and nourishment.

   Quotes from John 6 should not be used to interpret Jesus' words at
the Last Supper. The contexts are too different. However, those who
insist on doing so should realize that in John 6 Christ uses bread to
figuratively illustrate his point. If anything, this sets a precedent
for a figurative understanding of Christ's use of bread at the Last
Supper.

   3. Sound Reason

   I don't deny that God is capable of doing whatever he pleases.
Neither do I think that I am able to comprehend everything about God or
his actions. But I do believe that God has given us brains and expects
us to use them. God invited Israel, "Come now, and let us reason
together." As I consider Jesus' words at the Last Supper, three
additional reasons cause me to interpret them figuratively.

   First, the location of his body. When he spoke the words, "This is
My body," he was reclining with his disciples at the table. Surely they
would not have reasoned that both the bread and his actual flesh and
bones were his body. The plain view has them both as his body at the
same time. Following this view, the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus'
body is present on every altar in every consecrated host around the
world. Is this what the Bible teaches?

   The Scriptures tell us that Jesus is presently enthroned in Heaven.
His bodily return is yet a future event. The Bible never ascribes more
than one location to his physical body at any given time. Yes, he is
God and God is everywhere. But this refers to his spiritual, not
physical, presence. Also, the Scriptures never mention anyone
worshiping the bread as God.

   Second, the appearance of the bread and wine before and after
consecration look suspiciously alike. Moreover, it smells, feels, and
tastes like bread. The Catholic Church realizes that the physical
evidence contradicts the doctrine of the real bodily presence. To
explain this, it teaches that the "accidents" (qualities) of bread and
wine remain, but that the "substance" (nature) changes. But is it not
the inward nature of an object that produces the outward appearance?
Also, there is no other "miracle" recorded in the Bible where all
outward evidences declare that nothing has happened, while the faithful
are expected to blindly believe that, in fact, something has happened.
God has never dealt with man in that way.

   Third, let's look at the activity that results from a non-figurative
interpretation. When the Son of God became a man, he took upon himself
human flesh. Holy Communion is eating Christ's physical body. Why would
God want us eating human flesh? And why would he want us drinking human
blood? I know that we are speaking of the body and blood of Christ, but
is this reasonable?

   And is it Scriptural? The drinking of blood is repeatedly forbidden
in the Scriptures, including the New Testament. The apostles were
strict Jews who wouldn't think of eating nonkosher food. And you can't
find a food more unclean than blood. Some sincerely argue that eating
Christ's physical body must certainly bring grace. But Jesus taught,
"Hear, and understand. Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man,
but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man....Do you not
understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the
stomach, and is eliminated?" If eating can't defile us, then how can it
sanctify us? Is it Christ in my stomach that I need? Did not Jesus say,
"The flesh profits nothing"? Some do not think that the Mass needs to
be reasonable. "It is a mystery. Just accept it by faith," they
declare. But the Scriptures never call it a mystery; why should we?
Making it a matter of faith leaves the problems unanswered. Faith must
rest upon divine revelation.

   The Mass, as described by the Catholic Church, is not found in the
Bible.

   The problems listed above are real. The Mass is not only
unreasonable, it is unscriptural. However, these issues are resolved
when we accept the figurative sense of Jesus' words. His body need not
be everywhere, the inward nature of the bread and wine is consistent
with its outward appearance, and we have spiritual communion with
Christ.

   4. The Stated Purpose

   Why did Jesus take bread and wine and ask his disciples to do
likewise? The answer is found in Christ's own words, "Do this in
remembrance of Me." The Scriptures continue, "For as often as you eat
this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He
comes." This is the purpose given in the context of the verses under
examination. The figurative view of "This is My body" is in harmony
with this purpose. As each believer eats the bread, he is saying by his
actions, "Christ's body was broken for me. He took my punishment."
Drinking the wine symbolically states, "Christ's blood was poured out
for me. He gave his life in exchange for mine." Jesus Christ went to
the cross to save the world. God now offers full forgiveness to anyone
who will turn from his sins and trust Christ alone for salvation.

   Partaking of the bread and wine is an outward declaration that I as
an individual have accepted this offer. It is a public proclamation of
my reliance on his death. When believers do this together, it is also a
statement of their unity in Christ.

   The Lord Jesus need not be physically present to be remembered. The
bread and the wine serve as fitting reminders of his body and blood
given for us. We do this only "until He comes." Then we won't need the
symbols for we shall have him!

   The figurative view places the emphasis of worship where it belongs:
spiritual communion with God. God is spirit. He wants us to worship him
"in spirit and truth." This means he wants us to enter his presence in
spirit and without hypocrisy in our lives. Simply showing up and eating
the bread means very little to God. He is more interested in the
internal than the external, the spiritual than the physical. The
Scriptures emphasize self-examination to ensure spiritual reality
rather than outward form or mere attendance.

   Finally, the taking of bread and wine to remember him is consistent
with the simplicity that was Christ. All that he did and stood for was
opposed to elaborate rituals. He harshly criticized the Pharisees for
their pomp. The Apostle Paul wrote, "I am afraid, lest as the serpent
deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from
the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." Today we find
elaborate vestments, ready- made prayers, and Christ being sacrificed
on an altar with a solid gold chalice. It certainly didn't start out
this way.

   History tells of the late development of the present day Doctrine of
the Mass. It is not mentioned in the Apostles' Creed (written in the
second century) or the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.).

   Individual writers from this period can be cited to support a
variety of views. Notably, Augustine (354-430) held to the figurative
character of both John 6 and Jesus' words: "This is My body." There was
furious controversy from the ninth through the twelfth century. The
belief that the nature of the host changed at the consecration did not
become an official doctrine of the Catholic Church until the Lateran
Council of 1215. This was the first time in history that the Catholic
Church sanctioned the "theory of transubstantiation." The Vatican was
still developing the doctrine in the sixteenth century. At that time,
the Council of Trent sought to meet the challenges of the Reformation.
It further defined the theory and placed a solemn curse upon anyone who
denied it. Since then, the simple request of the Lord to be remembered
with bread and wine has been exalted to the "source and apex of the
whole work of preaching the gospel." These are the words of Vatican II.
Yet when the Apostle Paul told the church what was of "first
importance," "the gospel which I preached to you," he never even
mentioned bread or wine.

   What is the purpose of the Mass? It is the repeating of the
sacrifice of Christ in an unbloody manner to make satisfaction for
sins. Let's consider this statement a piece at a time.

   First, it is a sacrifice. A sacrifice is an offering made to appease
God. In the Scriptures we find no mention of the bread and wine as a
sacrifice. Note also that the Lord took bread and wine at a table, not
an altar. Tables are for eating; altars are for sacrificing. God
commanded the Jews that there was to be only one altar. If Jesus were
indeed instituting a sacrifice, then a second altar was established. No
verse of Scripture supports such a significant change.

   Second, the Mass is the repeating of a sacrifice. The Scriptures
tell us that a sacrifice which must be constantly repeated reveals
itself to be weak. If there is power in the mass, then why the weekly
and even daily repetition?

   Third, it is an unbloody sacrifice. Yet the Scriptures state that
"without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." A bloodless
sacrifice is a powerless sacrifice. Finally, the Mass is a sacrifice to
make satisfaction for sins. Every Mass declares that Christ's death on
the cross was not enough. But the Scriptures declare, "We have been
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for
all....Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no
longer any offering for sin."

   Why was it that Christ died on the cross? The Bible tells us, "the
wages for sin is death." Christ came to pay that punishment for us with
his own life. As he was dying, Christ declared, "It is finished!" When
he gave up his spirit, the penalty for sin was stamped "Paid in Full"
by God. The Apostle Peter states the matter clearly, "For Christ also
died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He
might bring us to God...." Now that's something worth commemorating!
What a joy to take bread and wine and remember what he did for us
rather than attempt to repeat it.

   Conclusion

   Is the Eucharist a symbol or a sacrifice? Your answer will depend on
a far more important question which each must ask himself: do I rely
upon Christ's sacrifice on the cross alone as sufficient payment for my
sins? Your response to this question will determine not just your
weekly practice, but your eternal destiny. God gave his Son to die for
your sins. He offers salvation as a gift. But he withdraws that offer
from anyone who attempts to receive it, even in part, through personal
merit. To seek God's grace through a continued sacrifice is to do just
that. Some Catholics reject the teaching of the real bodily presence
and daily sacrifice of Christ by the priest. However, many of these
same people continue to attend Mass, while redefining it in their own
terms. The Catholic Church does not permit this option. At every Mass
the priest raises the host and declares, "This is the Lamb of God, who
takes away the sins of the world." As each person receives the host,
the priest proclaims, "The body of Christ." The person receiving
Communion is to reply, "Amen." This Hebrew word is a solemn expression
of approval. The person is saying, "It is so, this is the body of
Christ." The Catholic Church asks those who cannot honestly state this
to refrain from receiving Communion.

   Every Catholic must make up his own mind. For me the process was
difficult. Long after I began reading the Bible and had trusted in
Christ as my Savior, I remained loyal to the Catholic Church.

   Although I was shown many of the Scriptures in this booklet, I
continued to go to Mass. One evening, I was invited to join a group of
Christians who had gathered simply "to remember him" with bread and
wine. They came being compelled only by their love for Christ. I
attended as an observer unconvinced of their belief that the Eucharist
was only a symbol. But as they freely worshiped their Savior and
rejoiced in his finished work of salvation, I knew that I was wrong.

   For further information write:

   Good News for Catholics

   P.O. Box 595

   Cupertiono, CA 95015

   (Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible,
copyright 1977, The Lockman Foundation)