Patristics & Theology: November 2005 Archives

The next topic I've been discussing with my interlocutor is the topic of Mary. He naturally objected to the title of Mary as Mediatrix, and was concerned that Catholic devotion sometimes substituted Mary for God. (He had a plausible reason to believe this, citing some over-the-top devotional literature it was my duty to do damage control for.)

Evangelicals and Fundamentalists object to the title of Mary as Mediatrix (the feminine form of "mediator") because of 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". Ergo, there are no other mediators, Catholicism is heretical, case closed.

I pointed out that Mary's role in Catholicism is to bring us to Jesus. Note that it is not to bring us to the Father; that is Jesus's role only. This verse means that there is one mediator between God the Father and man. It doesn't preclude there being mediators between Jesus and men.

I invited him to consider the role of the evangelist. Is the role of the evangelist not to reconcile men to Jesus? Isn't he trying to bring them to Jesus? Doesn't he pray for them and intercede for them and answer their objections and explain how much God loves them? That's mediation. It doesn't compete with Jesus's unique mediation because the evangelist mediates with Jesus, and he mediates with the Father. So it is with Mary. Her role, like the evangelist's, is to bring people to Jesus. That's it. That's what "mediatrix" means.

We do have to be careful in Catholicism to not exalt Mary above Jesus or God the Father. We have to realize that her role is to bring us to Jesus. It certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't pray the Rosary, or be devoted to Mary, but we must never think of her as a destination or as a substitute for God or Jesus. "To Jesus through Mary", as they say.

I recently got involved in a discussion with a Fundamentalist who is trying to convert me. One of the topics that has come up is the Sacrifice of the Mass, which gives Fundamentalists and Evangelicals the willies. It gave me the willies too, in my Evangelical-detour days. The claim is that we are "re-sacrificing" Jesus, as if his one sacrifice was not sufficient. This is deeply offensive to them (as well it should be). I did much study on it. It required more study than it should have (meaning, the answer should have been articulated more clearly by the church) but I came up with an amazing answer. It is not a re-sacrifice of Christ, but a making present of the one sacrifice of Christ.

The Synod in Constantinople (Jan. 1156-May 1157) said:

"Today's sacrifice is like that offered once by the Once-begotten Incarnate Word; it is offered by him (now as then), since it is one and the same sacrifice."

The Council of Trent wrote: "In the sacrifice of the mass, Christ's sacrifice on the cross is made present, its memory is celebrated, and its saving power is applied."

The Legion of Mary Handbook (1985 edition, p. 135) put it quite eloquently: "The Cross was not worth more than the Mass, because the two are but one and the selfsame Sacrifice, time and space being pushed aside by the hand of Omnipotence."

You see, Christ was our Passover sacrifice. This is a reference to Exodus, where the Jews had to sacrifice and eat a lamb to protect them from the final plague, the death of the firstborn. Jesus is the Lamb of God, like the lamb of Exodus, who takes away the sins of the world and protects us from the angel of death. Now, the Jews in the Passover had to sacrifice a lamb, which was a type (as in image) of Jesus. But they also had to eat the flesh of the sacrificed lamb. Likewise, we, too, must eat of the flesh of the sacrificed Lamb of God in order to be saved from the angel of death. The Eucharist is the means by which the flesh of that one sacrifice is communicated to us for us to partake and so be saved.

No Jew in Exodus thought it sufficient to say "I claim the blood of this lamb over my sins." No — they had to eat the flesh of the lamb. So it is with us. The sacrifice of the lamb corresponds to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, while the consumption of the lamb corresponds with the Eucharist. If you look at it this way, it becomes clear that the sacrifice of the Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary, made present.

So when someone charges the Catholic Church with "re-sacrificing" Jesus in the Mass, now you can set them straight.

If you really want to freak them out, ask them about Malachi 1:11:

"For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations," says the LORD of hosts.

See, this can only be fulfilled in the Eucharist, since Jewish sacrifices are only offered in Jerusalem and the offering is made by Gentiles (literally, "the nations"). This verse was applied to the Eucharistic sacrifice by the Didache around 90 A.D. This and other early Christian documents consistently referred to the Eucharist as a sacrifice.

Now this has gone from a topic that gives me the willies to one of my favorite topics!