Jul 26, 2026 · 1 hr 6 min · 11 segments
In this episode I cover the central difference between the Anglican Mass and the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass. I hope this is helpful to you! MA Program…
In his work on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Robert Bellarmine says the following, quote, The value of the sacrifice of the Mass is finite.
This is the common opinion of theologians, and it is proven clearly from the practice of the Church.
If the value of the Mass were infinite, it would be pointless to offer many Masses to obtain the same thing.
If one Mass were of infinite value, it would certainly be sufficient to obtain all things.
Why should it be otherwise? This is further confirmed by the sacrifice of the Cross, which was offered for a single purpose and is never repeated, precisely because that one sacrifice was of infinite value and worth, acquiring the remission of all sins, past and future.
There is, however, a great difference between the action of the Son of God acting directly and his action through a minister.
The former is an action immediately grounded in the divine person, whereas the latter is mediated through a human agent.
Thus, although the action of the minister is far more pleasing insofar as it is performed in persona Christi than if it were merely done in his own person, it is nevertheless beyond comparison less excellent than the action performed immediately by Christ himself.
In the same way among men, a request made by an envoy in the name of his ruler carries far greater weight with a prince than a request made in the envoy's own name.
Yet a request made by the ruler himself would carry even greater weight still if he were to ask personally.
Here's what's at stake in this debate.
Everyone agrees that in some sense, the offer of the sacrifice of the Mass, the celebration of Holy Communion, is limited in fruitfulness in some sense.
because of certain inhibitions in the person.
So the mass is limited in efficacy, for instance, relative to bringing about the fruits of sanctification.
Fair enough.
But here we're dealing with the question of whether the mass is limited in efficacy to affect the remission of sins.
If you'll recall, in Latin theology in general, and generally shared by even Anglicans, when you sin, you accrue a debt of punishment.
We deserve punishment on account of our sin.
And in the absence of due satisfaction made for that punishment, punishment will fall on us.
But if we make adequate satisfaction, that punishment is remitted.
The claim of the atonement, however we parse out the precise mechanism of this, is that Christ has made adequate satisfaction for all people, on account of which God can then justly remit our sin.
In his work on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Robert Bellarmine says the following, quote, The value of the sacrifice of the Mass is finite.
This is the common opinion of theologians, and it is proven clearly from the practice of the Church.
If the value of the Mass were infinite, it would be pointless to offer many Masses to obtain the same thing.
If one Mass were of infinite value, it would certainly be sufficient to obtain all things.
Why should it be otherwise? This is further confirmed by the sacrifice of the Cross, which was offered for a single purpose and is never repeated, precisely because that one sacrifice was of infinite value and worth, acquiring the remission of all sins, past and future.
There is, however, a great difference between the action of the Son of God acting directly and his action through a minister.
The former is an action immediately grounded in the divine person, whereas the latter is mediated through a human agent.
Thus, although the action of the minister is far more pleasing insofar as it is performed in persona Christi than if it were merely done in his own person, it is nevertheless beyond comparison less excellent than the action performed immediately by Christ himself.
In the same way among men, a request made by an envoy in the name of his ruler carries far greater weight with a prince than a request made in the envoy's own name.
Yet a request made by the ruler himself would carry even greater weight still if he were to ask personally.
Here's what's at stake in this debate.
Everyone agrees that in some sense, the offer of the sacrifice of the Mass, the celebration of Holy Communion, is limited in fruitfulness in some sense.
because of certain inhibitions in the person.
So the mass is limited in efficacy, for instance, relative to bringing about the fruits of sanctification.
Fair enough.
But here we're dealing with the question of whether the mass is limited in efficacy to affect the remission of sins.
If you'll recall, in Latin theology in general, and generally shared by even Anglicans, when you sin, you accrue a debt of punishment.
We deserve punishment on account of our sin.
And in the absence of due satisfaction made for that punishment, punishment will fall on us.
But if we make adequate satisfaction, that punishment is remitted.
The claim of the atonement, however we parse out the precise mechanism of this, is that Christ has made adequate satisfaction for all people, on account of which God can then justly remit our sin.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
