On the Articles: Article XXXI

The Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, let thy continual pity cleanse and defend thy Church; and, because it cannot continue in safety without thy succour, preserve it evermore by thy help and goodness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

This Article seeks to define the relationship between Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and the sacrificial nature of Christ in the Mass and particularly in the Blessed Sacrament.

It begins with a statement which today would be rather uncontroversial for most Christians: Christ offered himself on the cross as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (I St Jn 2. 2) and that there is no other way to satisfy our sins before God but through Christ’s sacrifice. Interestingly enough, this would be controversial to some post-Reformation Calvinists who began to view that Christ’s sacrifice was only for some and not for others, going so far as to suggest that Christ’s sacrifice was only intended and sufficient for the sins of the elect and those pre-destined to salvation (see Article XVII for Anglicanism’s position on those issues) and not for the sins of the whole world. This position is not Scripturally sound and is again by virtue of this Article rejected.

The second section of the Article becomes far more complicated. There are a number of critical points. First it addresses itself to sacrifices of Masses. The sacrificial nature of the mass is something accepted from the earliest days of the Church. From the Didache to many of the early fathers, but it is important to note the nature of this sacrifice. This was a reference to the sacrifice of the oblations placed on the altar, which then through the prayer of consecration became a participation with Christ’s one sacrifice. The Article notes that, “it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer4 Christ for the quick and the dead.” This here references the sacrificial nature of the mass which was condemned, though this view itself is one also condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, namely that the priest was re-sacrificing Christ every time in the mass rather than simply participating in Christ’s one sacrifice.

Fr Ken Ross argues that this section of the article was attacking:

the popular belief that in the Mass Christ was again offered or sacrificed, and rightly repudiates such an idea as blasphemous. From the plurals used, sacrifices and Masses, and from the latter part of the sentence, it is clear that it was private Masses of requiem which were felt to be the most objectionable. It is all bound up with the Romish doctrine of purgatory in Article XXII.

Here he points out part of the idea behind the Roman practice of the sacrifice on behalf of those who were dead and believed to be in purgatory. In this, then, as Fr Ken points out, this Article is simply reaffirming the condemnation of Article XXII. Additionally, though, it related to the idea of priestly control.

In the medieval period at the time of the Reformation, there was a popular conception that, regardless of whether or not the priest added anything to Christ’s sacrifice, that the priest was controlling access to the grace offered by Christ’s sacrifice. In this sense, it allowed the priest to control whether or not someone would be saved and would nullify the saving grace of Christ, as it was no longer accessible except through the ministry of the Priest. Again, that seems to be more the concept being condemned by this practice, not the sacrifice of Christ or participation in it through the bread and wine, which were views supported by the Patristic Church from the earliest times. In the early 2nd century, for instance, St Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice.”

This is a relatively simple Article, further points of clarification are made that make much more sense when taken in the context of the day, and particularly in the commonly held belief and practices of the day, rather than the doctrines of the Church which were both professed at that time and as they have later been ‘clarified’ to have been by the Roman Catholic Church.