Rome's Perpetual Sacrifice, the Destruction of Sodom, and the Word of God That Exposes the Claim
If Jesus Christ offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, by what authority does Rome claim that priests must continue offering Him to prevent God from destroying the world?
Throughout our previous investigations into The Holy Mass: The Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead, by Father Michael Müller, C.Ss.R., we have examined the extraordinary powers attributed to the Catholic priesthood, the theological inventions surrounding the perpetual sacrifice of Christ, and the historical authorities summoned to justify a religious system that claims the power to offer the Son of God upon its altars. Yet among the assertions contained in Müller's work, one is especially revealing, because it concerns not merely what occurs during a Catholic Mass but the supposed reason why Almighty God has refrained from destroying humanity.
According to Müller, the world would already have suffered the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah were it not for Catholic priests continually offering Jesus Christ as a sacrifice of propitiation. Indeed, Müller goes so far as to declare that, through this continual priestly offering, the hands of God are bound.
Consider the magnitude of that assertion. An earthly religious institution claims to administer a sacrifice without which divine judgment would supposedly have overtaken the world. The continued survival of humanity is thus attributed to an ecclesiastical sacrificial system, with the priest presented as the appointed minister through whom Christ is offered and divine anger appeased.
Yet God has not remained silent about why He withholds judgment, preserves a remnant, delivers the righteous, or grants the wicked time to repent. He has spoken through His prophets, through His Son, and through the apostles. His explanations are recorded in Scripture, where mercy, longsuffering, covenant faithfulness, righteousness, repentance, and the preservation of His elect appear repeatedly as the declared reasons for His restraint.
This investigation will therefore examine the precise claims of Müller, trace the Catholic authorities who expressed similar ideas, distinguish the official doctrine of Rome from the additional claims of individual priests, and place the entire argument under the authority of the King James Bible.
For there is a fundamental distinction which must govern every Christian investigation: a theological interpretation does not become the word of God because a council promulgates it, a pope repeats it, or a priest declares it necessary. The authority of Scripture cannot be manufactured by ecclesiastical repetition.
I. Michael Müller and the extraordinary claim that God's hands are bound
In The Holy Mass, printed page 287, Müller begins by acknowledging the infinite sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. He describes its value as exceeding the sins of millions of worlds, declaring that the satisfaction rendered to the Eternal Father through Christ is so abundant that it surpasses the entire debt of human wickedness.
One might reasonably expect such a declaration to conclude the matter. If Christ's sacrifice has satisfied divine justice with a value greater than the sins of millions of worlds, what deficiency remains to be remedied by an uninterrupted succession of earthly priestly offerings?
Yet Müller proceeds to insist that the sacrifice retains its value even when offered by a morally corrupt priest. The supposed efficacy of the offering does not depend upon the righteousness of the man performing it, since the priest is understood to act in the person of Christ. Having established this principle, Müller advances his claim concerning the preservation of the world:
“This sacrifice of propitiation is offered up daily, nay, hourly, all over the world. Ah ! what would become of the world without it?”
He then recalls the catastrophic judgments of the Old Testament, referring to the Flood, the pestilence following David's census, and the deaths associated with the Ark of the Covenant. Müller asks why punishments of this magnitude appear less frequently since the coming of Christ, despite the continued wickedness of humanity.
He supplies the explanation:
“The Fathers of the Church tell us that without doubt it is, because in all countries and at all times Jesus Christ is offered up by the priests of the Catholic Church, and the hands of God are bound.”
He immediately makes the intended meaning unmistakable:
“Indeed, were it not for this sacrifice of propitiation, we should have been treated long ago as were Sodom and Gomorrha.”
Source: Michael Müller, The Holy Mass, Fr. Pustet edition, printed p. 287; PDF p. 303.
There can be no reasonable dispute about what Müller is claiming. He explicitly connects the comparatively infrequent occurrence of catastrophic divine judgments with the continual offering of Christ by Catholic priests. His assertion that God's hands are bound is not an isolated metaphor detached from its surrounding argument. The judgment which would otherwise have overtaken humanity is supposedly restrained through the continuing sacrifice of the Mass.
On page 288, Müller declares:
“The property of this sacrifice, then, is to appease God”
He proceeds to explain that the sacrifice of the Mass possesses the same value as the sacrifice consummated upon Calvary, with its saving benefits continually applied through the offering of Christ upon Catholic altars. On page 289, he qualifies the effect of this sacrifice upon mortal sinners, explaining that the Mass does not directly absolve mortal sins but obtains the grace necessary for repentance and sacramental confession.
That qualification must be acknowledged. Müller is not claiming that every sinner receives automatic forgiveness merely because a priest celebrates Mass. He is nevertheless asserting that the ongoing sacrificial presentation of Christ restrains divine punishment and appeases God's anger.
The question is not whether Müller believed Christ's original sacrifice possessed sufficient value. He plainly did. The question is why a sacrifice supposedly sufficient for millions of worlds must nevertheless be continually offered so that God does not destroy this one.
The contradiction is not imaginary, nor can it be dismissed by calling the Mass a mystery. Müller has introduced a specific explanation for the restraint of divine judgment, and that explanation must be tested against the explanations God Himself has given.
II. Müller was not alone: the Catholic tradition of preserving the world through the Mass
Müller's assertion did not emerge in isolation. Catholic devotional literature contains a recurring argument that the sacrifice of the Mass protects the world from destruction by appeasing divine anger.
St Alphonsus Liguori (1696–1787), a Catholic bishop, theologian, Doctor of the Church, and founder of the Redemptorists, develops essentially the same argument in Dignity and Duties of the Priest; or, Selva, Part II, Instruction I, The Celebration of Mass. Liguori attributes enormous propitiatory power to the sacrifice and maintains that the earth would long ago have perished because of humanity's sins were it not for the continued celebration of Mass.
His assertion is not merely that Christians benefit spiritually from remembering Christ's death. He assigns to the continued sacrifice a role in preserving the entire world from the punishment its wickedness deserves.
Liguori invokes earlier authorities, including Odo of Cluny and Timothy of Jerusalem, to support his argument. These same names subsequently appear in Müller, demonstrating that the later priest was drawing upon an established Catholic line of theological reasoning rather than producing an entirely independent discovery.
St Leonard of Port Maurice (1676–1751), a Franciscan preacher, develops the argument with even more dramatic imagery in The Hidden Treasure of the Mass. He describes the Mass as the support preventing the world from collapsing beneath the weight of its iniquities:
“Mass is the potent prop that holds the world upon its base.”
He compares its operation to a heavenly rainbow pacifying divine justice, presenting the priestly offering of Christ as the means by which God is moved to withhold punishment from an offending world.
Notice what has happened to the biblical question of divine mercy. Instead of asking why the LORD Himself chooses to refrain from judgment, these writers place a continuing sacrificial institution at the centre of the explanation. The world survives, they argue, because the Mass continues.
Father Martin von Cochem (1635–1712), a Capuchin priest, presents a closely related argument in Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, particularly the section concerning Christ's blood being sacramentally offered and pleading before God, printed pp. 147–149 of the English edition.
Cochem expressly invokes Genesis 18:20–21, where the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah's wickedness rises before God. He then develops the claim that the blood of Christ presented through the Mass is powerful enough to avert the divine vengeance called for by humanity's sins. He depicts the blood as pleading before God on behalf of sinners and arresting the arm of divine justice.
The imagery is remarkably close to Müller's bound hands. In both accounts, divine punishment is restrained through the sacrificial presentation of Christ, and the Mass becomes the appointed earthly means by which that restraint is supposedly maintained.
The idea survived well beyond the nineteenth century. Father John A. Hardon, S.J. (1914–2000), in Holy Mass — Holy Innocents: The Holy Sacrifice Versus Human Sacrifice, repeats the conviction that the world would already have suffered destruction because of humanity's sins were it not for the continued offering of the Mass. Hardon places this argument within a broader discussion of Christ's saving sacrifice and the grace necessary for Christian charity, but he nonetheless repeats the claim concerning the world's preservation.
Thus the argument is not confined to one eccentric sentence in one obscure book. Across generations of Catholic preaching and devotional writing, we encounter a recognisable explanation: the sins of humanity call for destruction, the priest continually offers Christ, and the ongoing offering is credited with preventing divine judgment.
But the longevity of a claim does not transform it into divine revelation. A thousand repetitions of an interpretation cannot supply a commandment or doctrine absent from the Word of God.
The greater the claim, the greater the obligation to establish its authority. If Catholic writers assert that humanity depends upon their sacrificial system for its continued survival, they must produce more than an impressive succession of priests repeating one another.
They must produce the Word of God.
III. The supposed ancient witnesses: what did they actually teach?
Our investigations into the Liber Pontificalis and other ecclesiastical writings have already demonstrated why ancient attributions must be examined carefully. A claim does not acquire apostolic authority merely because a later author places an ancient name beside it. The authenticity of the witness, the original words, and the historical context all matter.
The same scrutiny must therefore be applied to the authorities invoked by Müller and Liguori.
Liguori cites Odo of Cluny (c. 880–942), referring to Collationes, Book II, chapter 28, reproduced in Patrologia Latina, volume 133, around column 572.
The Latin passage includes:
quia in hoc mysterio salus mundi tota consistit.
Translation: “Because in this mystery consists the whole salvation of the world.”
The statement associates the salvation of the world with the Eucharistic mystery. Yet the context concerns the holiness of the sacrament and Odo's criticism of priests who celebrate it carelessly or unworthily. It does not explicitly teach that the earth would be destroyed like Sodom unless Catholic priests maintained a continuous succession of Masses.
Pope Benedict XVI, in his general audience of 2 September 2009, refers to Odo's Eucharistic devotion and specifically discusses his complaints concerning negligent priestly celebration. This further establishes the actual subject of Odo's concerns.
We are therefore confronted with an important distinction. Odo may be cited as a witness to reverence for the Eucharist, but his words cannot simply be expanded into proof of Müller's claim about the binding of God's hands without demonstrating that he actually taught it.
The attribution to Timothy of Jerusalem presents an additional difficulty.
The homily cited in this tradition is generally identified as Oratio in Symeonem, concerning the Presentation of Christ and the prophet Simeon. Liguori reproduces the Latin:
Per quam orbis terræ consistit.
Translation: “Through which the whole world is sustained.”
The expression speaks of the world's standing or being sustained through the subject under discussion. Yet its precise referent and relationship to the later doctrine of the Mass must be established from the original Greek context rather than assumed from a subsequent devotional quotation.
More importantly, the authorship of the homily is disputed. The work circulates under several ancient names, including Timothy, Methodius and Hesychius, and modern scholarship has not securely identified Timothy of Jerusalem as its author. The text is catalogued as CPG 7405 and appears in Patrologia Graeca, volume 86, columns 237–252.
This uncertainty does not prove that the homily itself was fabricated in its entirety. It does mean that Timothy cannot be presented as an independently established historical authority without qualification.
Müller confidently appeals to what the Fathers supposedly taught, yet the two named earlier witnesses do not securely establish his precise proposition. Odo's genuine passage is narrower than the claim made from it, while the attribution and contextual meaning of the supposed Timothy testimony require further verification.
An ecclesiastical argument built upon ancient authority must establish what that authority actually said. Otherwise, the reader is being asked to trust the later writer's interpretation instead of the historical evidence.
And even if every ancient attribution were established beyond doubt, the question of scriptural authority would remain. The words of a Church Father may provide evidence of an historical belief; they cannot convert an otherwise unsupported theological interpretation into a commandment of Christ.
IV. Rome's official doctrine: the perpetual propitiatory offering
We must now distinguish the additional claims of devotional writers from what the Catholic Church officially teaches, because the strongest investigation is one that confronts Rome's doctrine as Rome actually defines it.
At the Council of Trent, Session XXII, chapter II, promulgated on 17 September 1562, the Catholic Church formally declared the sacrifice of the Mass to be propitiatory, teaching that the same Christ once offered upon the Cross is sacramentally offered through the ministry of priests.
The Council describes God as:
“appeased by the oblation thereof”
And Canon III condemns the proposition that the Mass is merely a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving or commemoration rather than a propitiatory offering.
This is not merely the opinion of Müller. The propitiatory character of the Mass belongs to the official sacrificial doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Council does not, however, formally proclaim that priests literally overpower God or that the absence of daily Masses would inevitably bring another destruction like Sodom. Those are further assertions advanced in Catholic devotional theology, and distinguishing them from the conciliar definition is essential.
Yet the Council supplies the doctrinal framework upon which those assertions depend: the continuing sacramental offering of Christ, through the ministry of ordained priests, is presented as an appointed means through which God's mercy and the fruits of redemption are obtained.
The teaching continued through subsequent papal declarations.
Pope Leo XIII, in Mirae Caritatis, 28 May 1902, §17, describes the Eucharistic sacrifice as offered daily for the salvation of the world. In §18, he develops the subject of humanity's sins calling for divine punishment and urges the appeasement of God principally through the Eucharistic sacrifice.
Pope Pius XII, in Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947, particularly §§68–79, teaches that Christ's sacrifice is sacramentally offered upon Catholic altars for expiation, propitiation and reconciliation. In §73, he describes Christ as offering Himself daily through the Mass, thereby making the saving effects of His sacrifice available to humanity.
Pope Paul VI, in Mysterium Fidei, 3 September 1965, §§27–34, reiterates the teaching that the sacrifice of Calvary is sacramentally made present and that its saving power is applied to the sins of humanity. In §33, he encourages priests to celebrate the Mass daily.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§1366–1367, preserves the same essential position. It describes the Eucharist as a sacrifice because it makes present the sacrifice of the Cross, applies its fruits and constitutes the same sacrifice under a different manner of offering.
The strongest Catholic defence therefore insists that Christ is not physically crucified anew at each Mass. Rather, the Church claims that the single completed sacrifice of Calvary is made sacramentally present and offered without bloodshed. Catholic theologians distinguish this from repeating Christ's death as another historical event.
That distinction must be acknowledged. But explaining a theological mechanism does not establish that Christ instituted it, and asserting that a ritual makes His sacrifice present does not demonstrate that such a ritual is necessary to prevent divine judgment.
The burden of proof remains where it belongs: upon those who claim that a continuing propitiatory offering of Christ is necessary and divinely instituted.
The Church's authority cannot serve as its own independent proof. The question is not what Rome says Rome may do, but what the Lord Jesus Christ commanded and what His apostles actually taught.
V. Isaiah exposes the problem: the LORD preserved the remnant
We now come to the biblical evidence, beginning with the very comparison Müller chose to support his argument.
Müller declares that humanity would already have been destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah without the perpetual sacrifice of the Mass.
Yet Isaiah 1:9 declares:
“Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.”
The prophet explicitly identifies the reason for the preservation of a remnant from complete destruction: the LORD Himself left that remnant.
Paul repeats the testimony in Romans 9:29:
“And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.”
These passages concern God's preservation of Israel and Judah and Paul's argument concerning the surviving seed of Israel (the Holy seed, not the nation state). We should not misrepresent them as a complete explanation of every deferred judgment throughout history. Yet their relevance to Müller's assertion is unmistakable, because they employ the same comparison with Sodom while explicitly attributing survival to God's preserving action.
Isaiah does not say that Judah escaped complete destruction because an earthly priesthood possessed a sacrifice capable of binding the hands of God. Paul does not introduce such an explanation when he repeats the prophecy. Both passages direct attention to the LORD, whose purposes concerning His people do not fail.
Isaiah 65:8–9 reinforces the principle. The LORD declares that He will refrain from destroying them all for His servants' sakes and will bring forth a seed from Jacob and an inheritor from Judah.
The preservation of the seed is presented as the action of God according to His own purpose.
Isaiah 48:9 is still more explicit concerning the restraint of divine anger:
“For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off.”
Here the LORD Himself identifies why His anger is deferred. He acts for His own name's sake and refrains from cutting off His people.
The same principle is expressed in Lamentations 3:22:
“It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.”
What could be clearer?
The preservation described in this passage is attributed to the LORD's mercies, not to an ecclesiastical institution's ability to administer a continuing sacrifice.
Psalm 78:38 describes God as full of compassion, forgiving iniquity, refraining from destroying His people and repeatedly turning away His anger. Malachi 3:6 attributes the survival of the sons of Jacob (Israel) to the unchanging character of the LORD, while Nehemiah 9:31 recalls that He did not utterly consume or forsake His people because He was gracious and merciful.
These passages do not deny the necessity of repentance or obedience, nor do they pretend that God never executes judgment. They demonstrate that the decision to preserve, pardon or punish belongs to the LORD, whose own character and purposes govern His actions.
No priest can claim to have discovered a superior explanation for God's restraint when God has already declared His reasons.
VI. Hosea and the destruction of Sodom's neighbouring cities
Hosea 11:8–9 is particularly revealing because God Himself compares threatened destruction with the fate of Admah and Zeboim, cities associated with Sodom and Gomorrah in Deuteronomy 29:23.
He declares:
“How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.”
And then:
“I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.”
This is an exceptionally close biblical parallel to the judgment Müller invokes.
God speaks of the possibility of treating Ephraim like cities destroyed with Sodom, yet declares that He will not execute His full anger.
And His explanation is:
“For I am God, and not man.”
The restraint is rooted in His own divine character.
Müller claims that the continual priestly offering of Christ is responsible for preventing Sodom-like destruction, while Hosea records the LORD Himself explaining His decision not to execute such destruction against Ephraim.
The contrast exposes the danger of allowing devotional theology to supply explanations that Scripture has not given. God's mercy is not a power wrested from Him by human ceremony, and His decision to refrain from judgment is not evidence that an earthly priesthood has acquired control over His hands.
And here we encounter an irony so extraordinary that it deserves to be placed directly beside God's own declaration in Hosea 11:9: “For I am God, and not man.”
Pope Pius XI, in Ad Catholici Sacerdotii (20 December 1935, paragraph 12), reproduced in Denzinger §2275, declares:
“Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed ‘another Christ’; for, in some way, he is himself a continuation of Christ.”
Michael Müller, in The Catholic Priesthood (Part IV, Chapter IV, printed p. 44), repeats the same extraordinary title:
“Sacerdos alter Christus.”
“The priest is another Christ.”
And in Part IV, Chapter VI (p. 73), Müller goes even further, speaking of:
“the power which he has received over the divine Person of Christ.”
Consider the staggering irony.
In Hosea, the LORD declares that He will withhold the destruction threatened against Ephraim because “I am God, and not man.” Yet Rome calls its earthly priests other Christs, while Müller attributes the prevention of Sodom-like destruction to their continual offering of Christ upon Catholic altars.
God identifies His divine nature as the reason for His mercy, while Müller presents the priestly sacrifice as the means by which judgment is restrained!
Catholic theology insists that another Christ means a sacramental representative rather than another God. But that does not answer the question: where did the appointed Judge authorise mortal men to claim that their continual offering of Him prevents His own judgment?
Christ declares in John 5:22:
“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.”
And what did Peter himself say when Cornelius fell at his feet?
Acts 10:26:
“But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.”
There is the contrast.
Peter acknowledged his humanity and refused such reverence; centuries later, popes bestowed upon their priests the title another Christ. The man who claimed no divine status has become the supposed foundation of an institution that magnifies its priesthood with titles Christ never gave it.
The LORD declares, “I am God, and not man.” Peter declares, “I myself also am a man.” But Rome declares of its priest, “He is another Christ.”
And Müller would have us believe that without these men continually offering Christ, the world would suffer the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Since when did the Judge of all the earth require men calling themselves other Christs to restrain Him from exercising His own judgment?
VII. Sodom, Abraham, and the righteous whom God remembers
Let us examine Sodom itself, since Catholic writers repeatedly invoke its destruction to dramatise the supposed necessity of the Mass.
In Genesis 18:23–32, Abraham approaches the LORD and asks whether He will destroy the righteous with the wicked. Abraham gradually reduces the number of righteous people for whose sake the city might be spared, finally asking whether God will refrain from destroying it if ten righteous persons are found there.
God agrees that He will not destroy the city for the sake of those ten.
There is no continual sacrificial offering of Christ in this account, nor any description of a priestly power capable of binding God's hands. Abraham intercedes, and the LORD declares His willingness to spare the city under the conditions discussed.
The necessary qualification is that Sodom was not ultimately spared. Genesis 19 records its destruction, while Genesis 19:29 explains that God remembered Abraham and delivered Lot from the overthrow.
Peter later recalls the destruction of Sodom and the rescue of Lot in 2 Peter 2:6–9, concluding that the Lord knows how to deliver the godly from temptations and reserve the unjust for judgment.
The biblical distinction is between God's power to deliver and His authority to judge. The preservation of the righteous does not require a human institution to make Him incapable of executing punishment.
Amos 4:11 presents another example, recalling judgments resembling the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah while describing survivors as firebrands plucked from the burning. Yet the survivors still refused to return to the LORD, demonstrating that deliverance from catastrophe does not itself guarantee genuine repentance.
Zephaniah 2:9 declares that Moab and Ammon will become like Sodom and Gomorrah, while the remnant of God's people will survive and possess their land. Zechariah 3:2 likewise portrays Jerusalem as a brand plucked from the fire.
The repeated biblical image is not of priests preventing all divine judgment through perpetual ritual, but of God preserving those whom He determines to preserve, sometimes in the very midst of judgment upon others.
And this is precisely why the survival of a remnant cannot be confused with the preservation of every earthly institution or every individual who claims religious authority.
VIII. God looks for righteousness, truth, and repentance—not a ritual that overrules judgment
Jeremiah 5:1 contains one of the most devastating passages for any argument that places ceremonial offerings above righteousness.
The LORD commands a search through Jerusalem to discover whether there is anyone who executes judgment and seeks the truth, declaring:
“if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.”
Here is an explicit biblical declaration concerning the possible preservation of a city. The LORD looks for truth and righteous judgment.
Ezekiel 22:30 describes God seeking someone to stand in the gap before Him for the land so that He should not destroy it, yet finding none. Again, the issue is faithful intercession and the moral condition of the people, not the mechanical efficacy of a continually administered sacrificial system.
The account of Nineveh supplies an even clearer demonstration.
In Jonah 3, the inhabitants of Nineveh hear the warning of impending destruction, believe God, proclaim a fast and turn from their wickedness. Jonah 3:10 records the result:
“And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.”
Nineveh is spared after repentance. The inhabitants do not establish an altar upon which Christ must be offered daily. They turn from wickedness, and God mercifully withholds the announced destruction.
This does not mean that good works purchase forgiveness or that human righteousness deprives God of His freedom to judge. It means that the LORD Himself has identified repentance as a reason for withholding threatened punishment.
Jeremiah 18:7–10 establishes the governing principle. When God announces judgment against a nation, its repentance may lead Him to refrain from the destruction; when a nation turns from righteousness to evil, promised blessings may be withdrawn.
Likewise, in 2 Chronicles 7:14, the LORD speaks of His people humbling themselves, praying, seeking His face and turning from wickedness, with forgiveness and healing following His merciful response.
The pattern is not hidden. God repeatedly calls His people to repentance and obedience, and Scripture repeatedly associates divine mercy with His own response to that repentance.
The question therefore becomes unavoidable: if God has commanded repentance, justice and obedience, who has authorized men to proclaim that humanity's preservation depends upon their continuing presentation of Christ as a sacrificial victim?
IX. David's plague does not establish Rome's perpetual sacrifice
Müller invokes the deaths associated with David's census as evidence of the terrible punishments God formerly inflicted upon sinners. Yet the biblical account deserves to be read completely.
In 1 Chronicles 21:15, God sends an angel to destroy Jerusalem. As the destruction proceeds, the LORD Himself commands that it cease:
“It is enough, stay now thine hand.”
The command is issued by God.
David subsequently builds an altar and offers sacrifices, and 2 Samuel 24:25 expressly associates those offerings with the plague being stayed. This must be acknowledged because the Old Testament does connect sacrifices and intercession with the cessation of divine judgment.
But it does not follow that the completed sacrifice of Christ must now be continually presented by Catholic priests to restrain the Almighty.
The sacrificial arrangements of the former covenant are precisely the subject addressed in Hebrews, which explains their relationship to Christ's once-for-all offering.
A historical account of David's sacrifice cannot simply be converted into an apostolic command authorizing an indefinite succession of Christian priests to offer Christ.
To establish that conclusion, Rome must demonstrate the institution of the new sacrificial mechanism, not merely point to sacrifices performed under a covenant whose priesthood Hebrews explicitly contrasts with that of Christ.
X. God has already declared which sacrifices He accepts
This brings us to the distinction Rome's doctrine must confront: the sacrifices commanded of believers under the new covenant are not additional offerings for sin, but the spiritual sacrifices of a redeemed people.
The principle is established throughout the Old Testament.
Isaiah 1:11 records the LORD's rejection of a multitude of sacrifices offered by a disobedient people:
“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.”
The passage is especially important because Isaiah does not merely criticise the quantity or outward form of the sacrifices. He condemns a people who maintain religious observance while practising evil.
In Isaiah 1:16–17, God commands them to put away wickedness, cease doing evil, learn to do well, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless and plead for the widow.
The remedy is moral and spiritual reformation, not the multiplication of offerings.
Hosea 6:6 declares:
“For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”
Christ Himself appeals to this passage in Matthew 9:13 and Matthew 12:7, thereby reaffirming the priority of mercy over religious observance emptied of righteousness.
Micah 6:6–8 confronts the same issue by asking whether burnt offerings, thousands of rams or rivers of oil can satisfy God. The prophet answers by declaring what the LORD requires:
“to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God”
Proverbs 21:3 teaches that doing justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. First Samuel 15:22 declares that obedience is better than sacrifice, while Amos 5:21–24 records God's rejection of hypocritical religious festivals and offerings, demanding instead that judgment and righteousness flow like mighty waters.
Psalm 51:16–17 declares:
“For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”
Psalm 50:14 commands thanksgiving and the performance of vows to the Most High, while Psalm 50:23 associates the offering of praise with honouring God and ordering one's conduct according to His ways.
These passages do not deny the historical place of sacrifices under the Mosaic covenant, nor do they suggest that righteous conduct can replace the atoning work of Christ. Their teaching is that external religious offerings cannot substitute for genuine obedience, mercy, justice and repentance.
It is therefore wholly contrary to the thrust of these passages to imagine that an outward sacrificial system can function as a substitute for the righteousness God demands.
And under the new covenant, the apostles tell us exactly what sacrifices believers are to offer.
XI. Hebrews: the continuing sacrifices of Christians are praise, thanksgiving and good works
Hebrews 13:15–16 declares:
“By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.”“But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.”
To “forget not” is to remember, to hold something in remembrance. When Christ declared, “This do in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19), He commanded His followers to remember what He had accomplished, not to sacrifice Him again. Remembrance looks back upon a completed act; it does not require that act to be repeated. Christ's sacrifice was made once for all (Hebrews 10:10), and no amount of priestly theology can turn remembrance into a command to re-offer Him.
There is indeed a continuing sacrifice in the Christian life, but the apostolic instruction identifies it as praise, thanksgiving, doing good and sharing with others. It is offered to God through Christ, whose sacrifice for sin has already been completed.
The writer does not instruct believers to offer Christ as a perpetual propitiatory victim, nor does he declare that priests must continually present His body and blood to prevent the destruction of the world.
Peter describes the people of God in equally explicit language. First Peter 2:5 declares:
“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”
And 1 Peter 2:9 calls believers a chosen generation and a royal priesthood.
Here the spiritual house is composed of living stones, and the sacrifices are those acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Peter does not describe the Church as a political empire, a succession of monumental cathedrals, or a priestly institution possessing the authority to restrain divine punishment through the daily offering of Christ. He describes believers as God's spiritual house.
Paul makes the nature of Christian sacrifice equally clear in Romans 12:1:
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”
Believers are called to present their own lives in holiness and obedience. They do not thereby become additional atoning victims, nor are they instructed to supply something supposedly lacking from Christ's completed sacrifice.
This is also the meaning of Philippians 4:18, where Paul describes gifts offered to support his ministry as a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.James 1:27 identifies pure religion with caring for the fatherless and widows in their affliction and keeping oneself unspotted from the world — not trafficking in ecclesiastical offices, auctioning cardinalates to the wealthy for thousands of gold ducats, and dressing the pursuit of earthly riches in the robes of divine authority. *See post the Den of Thieves
Christ Himself declares in John 4:23–24 that the Father seeks those who worship Him in spirit and in truth.
Ephesians 5:2 commands believers to walk in love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself as an offering and sacrifice to God.
The Christian is therefore commanded to imitate Christ's love, obey His commandments, practise mercy, give thanks, care for others and offer his life in faithful service.
Nowhere in these apostolic instructions is the believer commanded to maintain an earthly sacrificial system capable of restraining God's hands by continually offering His Son for sin.
The distinction is decisive: Christians are commanded to offer spiritual sacrifices because Christ's atoning sacrifice is sufficient, not because His atonement requires continued priestly administration to prevent the world's destruction.
XII. Rome's own Catechism recognises spiritual sacrifices—but adds the priestly offering
An important admission appears within the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself.
Section 2099 describes sacrifice as an expression of adoration, gratitude, supplication and communion with God. Section 2100 acknowledges that outward sacrifice must express genuine spiritual sacrifice and refers to the biblical demands for mercy and a contrite heart.
The Catechism also recognises Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross as the one perfect sacrifice.
This prevents us from falsely claiming that Catholic doctrine contains no teaching concerning righteous living, thanksgiving or mercy. It plainly does.
But the Catechism goes further by teaching, in §§1366–1368, that the sacrifice of Calvary is made sacramentally present in the Eucharist and that the offerings, prayers, sufferings and lives of believers are united to that sacrificial presentation.
The Catholic Church considers these teachings compatible. Yet the issue is not whether Rome can combine them within its theological system. The issue is whether the combination is established by the words of Christ and His apostles.
Men are not God, no matter how exalted their titles, how magnificent their robes, how vast their ecclesiastical empire, or how many fortunes in gold they have amassed through the buying and selling of sacred offices. No amount of earthly wealth, manufactured prestige, or self-proclaimed divine authority can elevate mortal men to the throne of Almighty God.
Hebrews commands the sacrifice of praise, doing good and sharing with others. Peter commands spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (not a priest). Paul commands believers to present their bodies as living sacrifices.
The existence of these clear apostolic instructions cannot be used as proof of an additional sacerdotal mechanism which the passages do not describe.
The burden of proof does not shift merely because an ecclesiastical authority calls its interpretation sacred "tradition".
XIII. The once-for-all sacrifice and the High Priest who lives forever
The authority of Hebrews is particularly decisive because the epistle directly addresses priesthood, sacrifice, mediation, the former covenant and the completeness of Christ's redeeming work.
Hebrews 7:23–24 explains that the former priests were numerous because death prevented them from continuing, whereas Christ possesses an unchangeable priesthood because He continues forever.
Hebrews 7:25 declares:
“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.”
Christ's continuing heavenly ministry is explicitly identified as everlasting intercession.
Romans 8:34 confirms that the risen Christ, seated at the right hand of God, makes intercession for believers. First Timothy 2:5 declares that there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
Hebrews 9:12 states that Christ entered the holy place once through His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. Hebrews 9:24–28 contrasts His heavenly ministry with the former repeated sacrificial offerings and declares that He appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Hebrews 10:10 identifies sanctification through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:12 then declares:
“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God”
Hebrews 10:14 continues:
“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
And Hebrews 10:18 concludes:
“Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.”
The passage does not describe a sacrifice whose saving effects expire unless priests continue performing a ritual. It describes a completed offering possessing enduring efficacy, followed by Christ's exaltation and everlasting intercession.
On the Cross, Christ declared, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Colossians 1:20 attributes peace to the blood of His Cross, while Romans 5:1 describes peace with God through Jesus Christ.
The Catholic answer is that the Mass is not another historical crucifixion but the sacramental making-present of the one sacrifice. That is the strongest form of the Catholic argument, and it deserves to be addressed rather than caricatured.
Yet its explanation does not establish its divine institution, and it certainly does not establish Müller's further claim that the world would have been destroyed without daily Masses.
The completed sacrifice of Christ may possess eternal saving power without having to be continually offered as an earthly propitiatory act.
In 1 Corinthians 11:26, Paul describes believers proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes. That is an explicit apostolic description of the continuing significance of the Lord's Supper.
The claim that this proclamation must also constitute a priestly propitiatory offering requires further evidence. It cannot be established merely by asserting that the Church has always interpreted it in that manner.
Christ is the everlasting High Priest. His sacrifice is complete, His intercession continues, and the salvation of His people does not depend upon any deficiency remaining in the offering He made once for all.
XIV. The woman, the serpent, and the remnant in Revelation
The biblical theme of preservation becomes especially significant when we turn to Revelation, where the conflict between the serpent and the woman's offspring recalls the earliest promise recorded in Genesis.
Genesis 3:15 declares:
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”
In Revelation 12:1, John describes a woman clothed with the sun, the moon beneath her feet, and a crown of twelve stars upon her head.
The imagery recalls Joseph's dream in Genesis 37:9–10 and possesses strong associations with Israel (Jacob). The prophetic descriptions of Zion as a wife and mother in Isaiah 54:1–5 and Isaiah 66:7–8 provide further background.
The precise identity of the woman has been interpreted differently by Christians, and the passage should not be forced to say more than it declares. Nevertheless, the connections with Israel, Zion, motherhood and the promised seed are substantial.
Revelation 12:9 identifies the dragon as the old serpent, recalling the enemy introduced in Genesis 3.
Revelation 12:6 declares:
“And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.”
The place of refuge is expressly prepared by God.
Revelation 12:14 describes the woman receiving the wings of a great eagle to escape into the wilderness, where she is nourished during the period of persecution.
Then Revelation 12:17 declares:
“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
The woman is not herself expressly called the remnant. Rather, the dragon makes war against the remnant of her seed, whose distinguishing characteristics are their obedience to God and their testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 14:12 repeats the description of faithful saints:
“Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
Revelation 12:11 also describes their victory through the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony, even when faithfulness costs them their lives.
The connection with Isaiah 1:9 and Romans 9:29 is striking. The LORD preserves a seed; the dragon persecutes the woman's seed; and the saints are identified by faithfulness to God and Jesus Christ.
These passages do not establish that every biblical reference to a remnant concerns precisely the same group, nor do they promise that the righteous will avoid all suffering and death. They do, however, identify the source of their victory and the character of their faithfulness.
Revelation does not describe the woman's refuge as the work of a Catholic priest offering Christ upon an altar. It declares that God prepared the place.
The remnant does not overcome the dragon through the power of a priestly institution supposedly capable of binding God's hands. Its victory is through the Lamb, whose blood has already been shed, and through faithful testimony.
If Müller's explanation of the world's preservation is necessary to understanding divine judgment, its absence from these detailed descriptions of persecution, preservation and the final conflict is all the more conspicuous.
XV. Peter explains why the final judgment is delayed
We must now confront the question at the heart of Müller's assertion: why has God delayed the final judgment of the wicked?
Peter supplies an explicit answer.
Second Peter 3:7 describes the present heavens and earth as reserved for judgment by fire. Peter then addresses the apparent delay in the fulfilment of God's promise.
Second Peter 3:9 declares:
“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
And 2 Peter 3:15 adds:
“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation”
Peter is directly addressing delayed divine judgment, the very subject Müller attempts to explain.
Yet Peter does not attribute that delay to Catholic priests continually offering Christ. He attributes it to the longsuffering of the Lord and His purpose in granting opportunity for repentance.
Christ Himself declares in Matthew 24:22:
“And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”
Mark 13:20 repeats this teaching and expressly identifies the Lord as the one who shortens the days for the elect whom He has chosen.
Thus Scripture again explains the restraint and limitation of destruction through God's own purposes concerning His people.
The LORD who preserved the remnant in Isaiah, withheld destruction from Ephraim in Hosea, spared Nineveh after repentance, delivered Lot from Sodom, and prepared a refuge for the woman in Revelation is the same God who determines the time and manner of final judgment.
The evidence of Scripture is not that a priestly institution has obtained the power to suspend His judgment. It is that God Himself is merciful, longsuffering, just and faithful to His promises.
XVI. The supreme irony: Christ Himself is the Judge
There remains one final and extraordinary difficulty with Müller's formulation.
John 5:22 declares:
“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son”
Second Timothy 4:1 likewise identifies the Lord Jesus Christ as the one who shall judge the living and the dead at His appearing and kingdom.
The Catholic priest, according to Müller, continually offers Christ so that divine wrath may be appeased and God's hands remain bound. Yet Scripture declares that the very Christ whom the priest supposedly presents upon the altar is Himself the appointed Judge.
This produces an unavoidable theological question.
If Christ is the Judge, and if His own sacrifice has already obtained eternal redemption, in what sense can the continued offering of Him by an earthly priest be necessary to prevent that Judge from executing His judgment?
It is no answer merely to insist that Christ is both priest and victim, because Hebrews already establishes His everlasting priesthood and once-for-all sacrifice without drawing Müller's conclusion concerning the world's survival.
Nor is it sufficient to appeal to theological language developed centuries after the apostles. The issue is not whether a philosophical explanation can be devised to reconcile a proposition with a pre-existing ecclesiastical system; the issue is whether that proposition is taught by the Word of God.
The completed sacrifice of Christ does not require a human institution to make divine mercy possible. Scripture already explains the everlasting sufficiency of His blood, the permanence of His priesthood, and His continuing intercession.
And God has explicitly declared His reasons for preserving, pardoning and delaying judgment.
XVII. The verdict of Scripture against the claim that the Mass preserves the world
We can now examine the matter without confusing Catholic doctrine, Catholic devotional speculation and biblical revelation.
The Council of Trent officially teaches that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. Subsequent popes reaffirm its continuing celebration, and the Catechism maintains that Calvary's single sacrifice is made sacramentally present through the Eucharist. This is the Roman Catholic doctrinal position.
Müller, Liguori, Leonard of Port Maurice, Cochem and Hardon advance the additional claim, in different forms, that the continuing Mass averts divine anger and preserves the world from destruction. Müller makes the most striking assertion when he describes God's hands as bound and declares that humanity would otherwise have been treated like Sodom and Gomorrah.
Yet the historical witnesses invoked to support this claim do not establish the proposition as an apostolic teaching. Odo's genuine words have been extended beyond their demonstrated context, while the authorship and relevant interpretation of the supposed Timothy testimony remain uncertain.
More importantly, Scripture repeatedly attributes the restraint of divine judgment to the LORD's own mercy, faithfulness, purposes and longsuffering.
Isaiah attributes the survival of the remnant to the LORD who preserved it. Hosea records God's own declaration that He will not execute His full anger against Ephraim. Jeremiah describes His willingness to pardon where righteousness and truth are found. Jonah records the sparing of Nineveh after repentance. Peter (the alleged first pope himself) explains the delay of final judgment through divine longsuffering.
Hebrews establishes the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, His unchangeable priesthood and His everlasting intercession. The apostles command believers to offer praise, thanksgiving, mercy, charity and lives dedicated to righteousness, all through Jesus Christ.
No biblical passage examined here establishes Müller's claim that the continued existence of humanity depends upon priests offering Christ daily to keep God's hands bound.
And this distinction must be maintained: righteous living does not purchase exemption from judgment, nor does human obedience replace the redeeming work of Christ. Salvation is grounded in the mercy and saving action of God through His Son. The sacrifices of believers are the faithful response of those who belong to Him, not additional payments for sin.
What Scripture commands is repentance, faith, obedience and spiritual sacrifice through Christ. What Müller adds is the necessity of a continuing priestly propitiatory offering to prevent another Sodom. The former possesses explicit biblical authority; the latter has not been established from the words of Christ or His apostles.
This is why God's Word must remain supreme over the interpretations of men.
A theological system may possess centuries of tradition, elaborate explanations, sacred ceremonies, councils, papal pronouncements and countless volumes of devotional literature. None of those things grants it the authority to insert an alleged divine necessity where Scripture has not established one.
The LORD did not need Müller to explain His mercy. He had already spoken.
“It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.” — Lamentations 3:22
And Christ did not leave His people uncertain concerning the sacrifice by which redemption was accomplished.
“For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” — Hebrews 10:14
The distinction between these declarations and Müller's theology is not subtle. Scripture attributes the preservation of God's people to His mercy and purposes, and redemption to the completed sacrifice of His Son. Müller introduces a continuing priestly offering as the supposed reason why divine judgment has not already consumed the world.
The Catholic Church may describe this offering as the sacramental presentation of Calvary, but that explanation does not establish Müller's claim about preventing Sodom-like destruction. The claim requires its own authority, and that authority has not been produced.
Christ's sacrifice does not require perpetual ecclesiastical maintenance to remain sufficient. His priesthood does not expire between Masses. His intercession does not depend upon a mortal priest successfully performing an earthly ceremony. And the Lord's decision to show mercy is not evidence that men have bound His hands.
The Christian's continuing sacrifices are the offerings commanded by Scripture: praise, thanksgiving, obedience, justice, mercy, charity, and a life presented to God through Jesus Christ. Such sacrifices do not replace the Cross; they testify to the living faith of those redeemed by it.
As for the judgment of the world, Christ Himself has been appointed Judge, and no man has been given authority to place Him under restraint.
Which leaves the question Müller never answers:
If the LORD Himself declares why His people are not consumed, if His Son has offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, and if the apostles explicitly identify the spiritual sacrifices God requires, who gave Rome the authority to proclaim that the world would already have been destroyed unless its priests continued offering Christ?
The question cannot be answered by appealing to Rome's own authority, because that is precisely the authority under examination.
It must be answered from Scripture.
And until that answer is produced, the assertion that Catholic priests preserve the world by binding the hands of God remains an assertion of men—not a demonstrated teaching of Jesus Christ.
Documentary sources and references
Catholic sources
Michael Müller, C.Ss.R., The Holy Mass: The Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead, Fr. Pustet edition, printed pp. 159, 163 and 286–289. The specific claim concerning Sodom and the binding of God's hands appears on p. 287, PDF p. 303 of the research copy.
St Alphonsus Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest; or, Selva, edited by Eugene Grimm, 1889, Part II, Instruction I, The Celebration of Mass. Text.
St Leonard of Port Maurice, The Hidden Treasure of the Mass, The Three Excellencies of Mass. Text.
Martin von Cochem, Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, English edition, chapter concerning Christ's blood and its intercession, especially printed pp. 147–149. Bibliographic edition.
Council of Trent, Session XXII, 17 September 1562, chapters I–II and Canon III. Council text.
Pope Leo XIII, Mirae Caritatis, 28 May 1902, §§17–18. Vatican text.
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947, §§68–79. Vatican text.
Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, 3 September 1965, §§27–34. Vatican text.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§1362–1369, 2099–2100. Official Vatican text.
John A. Hardon, S.J., Holy Mass — Holy Innocents: The Holy Sacrifice Versus Human Sacrifice. Author's archive.
Ancient-source verification
Odo of Cluny, Collationes, Book II, chapter 28, Patrologia Latina, vol. 133, around col. 572. Compare Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience, 2 September 2009.
Oratio in Symeonem, traditionally attributed to Timothy of Jerusalem, CPG 7405, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 86, cols. 237–252. The attribution is disputed, and the exact meaning of the quotation must be verified against its original Greek context.
Scripture
All biblical quotations are from the King James Version. The principal passages examined include Genesis 3:15; 18:23–32; 19:29; 1 Samuel 15:22; 2 Samuel 24:25; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Psalm 50; 51:16–17; 78:38; Isaiah 1:9–17; 48:9; 54:1–5; 65:8–9; 66:7–8; Jeremiah 5:1; 18:7–10; Lamentations 3:22; Hosea 6:6; 11:8–9; Amos 4:11; 5:21–24; Micah 6:6–8; Jonah 3:5–10; Zephaniah 2:9; Zechariah 3:2; Malachi 3:6; Matthew 9:13; 12:7; 24:22; John 4:23–24; 5:22; 19:30; Romans 5:1; 8:34; 9:29; 12:1; 1 Corinthians 11:26; Ephesians 5:2; Philippians 4:18; Colossians 1:20; 1 Timothy 2:5; 2 Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 7:23–25; 9:12–28; 10:10–18; 13:15–16; James 1:27; 1 Peter 2:5–9; 2 Peter 2:6–9; 3:7–15; and Revelation 12:1–17; 14:12.
Comments