THE DEFINITION
Firstly, let us define the terms using their own words from the counsel of Trent, and online Catholic encyclopedia. "In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good."
They say the Eucharist does 2 things, 1- it is a sacrament (a sacred ritual), whereby a person receives grace upon observance. 2- it is the "sacrifice of His only-begotten Son". In other words it (the bread and the wine) is NO different to them than the cross whereupon Christ shed his blood even that it is Christ himself. They believe the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Christ LITERALLY (this is what is meant by 'transubstantiation'). Now if you don't believe this, read what they say in one of, if not the most important counsels they have ever had, the Counsel of Trent: "in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross". Did you get it? That 'same Christ' is contained (they say Christ is contained in the elements-bread and wine, during the Mass) and immolated (killed as a sacrifice), in the Mass! They also defy logic saying the mass is an unbloody sacrifice, yet is supposed to actually be his blood! They continue to say "...that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory ...For the Lord, appeased by the oblation (or the offering) thereof, and granting the grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins." Propitiate means to appease Gods wrath. Christ’s death truly does make propitiation for our sins, they say however 'so also does the Mass', for it is simply our way to partake of the cross.
They continue..."For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different." You see, in the Mass, Christ is each time "the victim" of suffering. And instead of Christ offering himself as on the cross, so called priests offer the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Priests who are “not suffered to continue by reason of death” (He.7:23) and who are not priests by an oath of God (v21, 28) and not after the power of an endless life (v16) thus priests of some alien order.
So we see what is meant by the Roman Catholic, when he speaks of the Mass. He adheres to the belief that Jesus Christ is there personally, body, soul, and spirit. They believe it is literally Jesus Christ! The Godhead is under the bread and wine! Listen..."as long as men refuse to believe in the true Divinity of Christ, who commanded that His bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily (daily renewed? When did he command this?) renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of His Body and Blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine. This alone is the origin and nature of the Mass...the Savior Himself, with equal solemnity, says of the chalice: This is My Blood of the new testament ". It follows therefore that Christ had intended His true Blood (of course in an unbloody way !?) in the chalice not only to be imparted as a sacrament, but to be also a sacrifice for the remission of sins.
Now in case you missed it, let’s state it in more transparent terminology.
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema."
CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema
CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema." (They worship that bread for real! watch...)
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolaters; let him be anathema." (Do you see that? They carry ‘Jesus’ around solemnly, as a piece of food, in a procession! If that isn't idolatry I don't know what the word means. Latria means supreme worship of God alone.)
THE DEVILISH NATURE
1. Understanding therefore, what is believed by a Roman Catholic, we may begin to understand the multiple iniquities chargeable to it. The first and most audacious blasphemy attributed to the mass is the substitution of worship to Godward, being replaced by the adoration of a piece of bread. Besides the obvious absurdity of such a thought, let us consider the following. Is Jesus Christ known anymore among us in the flesh? Paul states in 2 Cor. 5:16 “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.” Shall we consider this to be like unto those of whom Christ warned, claiming ‘Lo, here is Christ, or, there’ (Matt.24:23) ? Were this verse to be applied to a human person, it may warrant our concern. But for a man to say of a piece of bread, “Lo, here is Christ”, is to embarrass any normal thinking person. To cause men to believe this is to rob them of common sense and imbue them with the grossest superstition.
God forbids any worship other than himself, stating in Exodus 20:3-5 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. [4] Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: [5] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God…”. Even though Jesus Christ came in the form of a man, and received worship as God in human flesh, his physical body was not worshipped. (John 20:25-29) When he died upon the cross, his soul left his body, (Matt.12:40, Luke 23:43, 46) and a body is dead only when the soul departs (Gen.35:18, 1 Kin.17:21-3). Would not the disciples have committed iniquity, to worship his body of flesh? Would any man have thought that “the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ” were contained in any part of his body of flesh, were it severed from the rest of his body? Would not it have been horribly unspeakable, for the disciples to literally eat his body and blood? Such thoughts are ghastly, confused, and intolerably blasphemous. These are the thoughts the Roman doctrine infects men’s hearts with.
2. Next, the mass causes men to put faith in something other than the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Galatians 6:14 “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” Is the Roman altar the cross? No, Christ died outside of Jerusalem (Heb.13:12, Jn.19:16-18). Then it is not the power of God unto salvation (1 Cor.1:18). And there is no reconciliation to God (Col.1:20) in the mass. "Where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator," (Heb. 9: 16.). Is there another testament at each mass? Are sins remitted at any mass? Then why must they not cease to be offered? (Heb.10:1-2, 18) This is the evidence the apostle gives to disprove the sacrifices made under the law; that if those sacrifices would have remitted sin they would have ceased to be offered. Hebrews 9:25-26 “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The mass defies the reasoning presented in these 2 verses. For in the mass Christ offers himself often. In the mass Christ still appears to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. While on the cross he obtained eternal redemption for us (9:12); he perfected us forever and sanctified us by the one offering of his body (10:10, 14) so that there is no more offering for sins (v18). The mass causes us to glory in the cross only as much as the Old Testament sacrifices, for it is no more effective otherwise ‘would it not have ceased to be offered’. Why would we trust in the blood of the cross, which Christ shed once, if we believed that in the mass is contained the blood of the Christ? The only cross on the Roman altar would be a graven image. So since the Roman altar is not the cross, there is nothing to glory in. How pernicious indeed for the center of their faith to be the crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh and continually putting him to an open shame (Heb.6:6, Gal.3:1).
3. The further confusion wrought in this doctrine is the havoc wreaked upon the doctrine of the resurrection. Romans 6:9-10 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. [10] For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. What we notice from these verses are 2 things. 1 is that Christ died once! Christ also hath once suffered (1 Pet.3:18). The offering of the body of Jesus Christ was once offered (Heb.10:10). And 2nd is that he “dieth no more”. This is the essence of the resurrection, that Christ could not be held of death (Acts2:24), and the he cannot die any more (Luke20:36). In the mass however death continuously has dominion over Christ. He dies while he is resurrected. He has a corruptible body at the same time that he has an incorruptible body (1 Cor.15:42). This is the confusion and scriptural contradiction wrought by the doctrine of the mass and only held in honor by those intoxicated already by the wine of her fornication (Rev.17).
4. The priesthood of Christ is infringed upon in the mass. The priesthood of Christ is seen in the one sacrifice which he offered, which is the sacrifice of himself. For “this he did once, when he offered up himself” (Heb.7:27). Notice again how he offered himself ONCE, and not that he should “offer himself often” (Heb.9:25). But again notice that he offered himself. He hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb.9:26). If he offered himself, how can another priest claim to offer him? This man offered one sacrifice for sins forever (Heb.10:12)! Notice how Hebrews 7 clearly refutes any other priesthood than that of Christ’s. Making it evident that Christ’s priesthood is based on the “word of oath” and the “power of an endless life”. Therefore Christ is a priest forever (v21,16). And his priesthood is an unchangeable priesthood (not morphing into something else), because he continueth ever, and therefore ever liveth to make intercession for us (v24-25). The offering that Christ offered was the offering up of himself (v27), which he did ONCE. This was a sufficient offering, and need not be offered continually (see #2 above). If the Romish Nicolaitane priests feel that they are entering into Christ’s priesthood by offering his body and blood, do they also believe they will continue offering his body and blood forever? His priesthood changeth not, will theirs?
5. The confusion and mixture of the creature and the Creator (2 natures); the eternal uncreated life giving Spirit with the created human body of the man Christ Jesus. The body and blood of the spotless Lamb of God appeased the eternal justice of Almighty God when he offered himself on the cross. The abstract and spiritual realities of these truths (i.e. the mysteries of Godliness) are the focus and cause of faith. The words of Jesus are life giving spiritual truths (Jn.6:63, 68). They are eternal Spirit (He.9:14, Jn.4:24, Jn.1:1). The body of Jesus the Son of man is created (He.10:5, Gal.4:4). The water he offered the woman at the well was the word of truth about himself (Jn.4:10-26). The bread from heaven was Jesus himself of which the manna was a type (Jn.6:31-5). But their faith had to be activated by the revelation (Rom.10:17) of his person (I am the bread- Jn.6:35, 48, 51). To eat and drink of Christ was to believe what he taught (Jn.6:29, 35, 47). To receive his Spirit was to believe his words- the manifestation of his Spirit (Jn.7: 37-9, 6:63). We partake of this divine nature by believing his promises (2 Pt.1:4). In the same way that Jesus lived by the Father (Jn.6:57, 12:49-50, 14:10, 7:16-17, 4:34), we are to live by Christ; that is live by the faith of the Son of God (Gal.2:20). The flesh does not profit us in the same way the spirit does (Jn.6:63). The flesh and blood body of the man Christ Jesus which he covered himself in when he came down from heaven in the flesh, was for God directly and for us indirectly. When he made propitiation through his shed blood he satisfied the justice of God. This physical, historical action becomes an abstract doctrine for us. Our faith in the doctrine related to what he did and who he is gives life to us. The life is the divine nature, the eternal life which is God himself which is Christ himself (Jn.17:3, 1 Jn.5:12, 20, 1:2-3) which is Spirit (Rom.8:9, 2 Cor.3:17); that is to say not flesh and blood and not created. In other words to eat the physical created body and blood of Christ would not impart eternal uncreated spiritual life to us- that is what believing what he taught and promised does to us. The mass seems to implicitly seduce us into believing that the physical created body and blood of Jesus the man becomes in us the eternal spiritual life of Christ who is God. As if the bread and wine themselves become spirit and life and not that the gospel itself containing the words of eternal life impart us this life by our faith. Now the term transubstantiation relates only the substance of bread and wine is converted into another substance— the real body and blood of the Lord; the accidents remaining the same (i.e. the external appearance is still bread and wine). But when Christ died on the cross he gave up the ghost and his human spirit departed from his physical body (Lk.23:46, which is death- Ja.2:26). And so the real presence of Jesus was not within his physical body and his physical body did not manifest the eternal Spirit (was not glorified) which is God, until after his physical resurrection- 1 Pt.3:18, 1 Cor.15:42-49, 2 Cor.13:4. Remember the words of Trent above “the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ”. This contradicts the very definition of death! And again how does ingesting the substance of his body and blood at his death (which is the absence of life) generate eternal life within us? It seems to elicit within minds that the created and the creator are related in a panentheistic manner. This appears to be the intended goal.
THE DEDUCTIVE DISASTER
A final thought, at this point, will be to demonstrate the obvious trail of illogical beliefs associated with this doctrine.
That Christ meant his literal physical body and blood in Matthew 26:26-28. His body was not bread, it was holding the bread, and his blood was still in his body, literally. Christ clarified this for the Catholics in verse 29, when he called the ‘so called’ blood, “this fruit of the vine”! If Christ meant the mass to be literal, he surely did not here!
That Christ’s blood is offered in an unbloody manner. What does that mean? Is it literally his blood or not. Catholic response, ‘Well, yes… well, no’. It turns into his body and blood, they say. Did Christ say ‘this will turn into my body’, or ‘this will turn into my blood’? No. Then why do they? 1 Cor. 10:21 “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.”
That Christ is dead while he is resurrected. Why would anyone think this to be conceivable? Is Christ risen from the dead? Yes (1 Cor.15:20). Then he dieth no more (Rom.6:9). If he is risen from the dead physically, with an incorruptible body (1 Cor.15:42), how does he continuously die? Furthermore, if Christ dies at each mass, when does he rise again?
That the ‘elements’ of bread and wine ever physically change into Christ. No one, save a deranged man, literally believes this. Even the Catholics say it occurs while the bread and wine remain (see Canon 2 above). So how can it remain bread and wine, while it turns into flesh and blood? If it remains bread and wine it is not Christ, for he had a body of flesh (Col.1:22, 1 Pt.2:24).
That all the above is possible because with God all things are possible, charging God with their folly. God cannot lie, and is not the author of confusion (Titus 1:2, 1 Cor.14:33) therefore cannot instruct anyone to believe such things, as shown above. Even over and above the fact that his word, the bible, does not teach this. Come now, let us reason together, saith the LORD (Isa.1:18). The only mystery in Romanism is the ‘mystery of iniquity’ (2 Th.2:7, Rev.17:5).
תגובות