Catholic Dogma Answered Scripturally
All quotations come from the Authorized Version in English AKA the King James Version
Eucharist or the Mass
The Eucharist, also called the Mass, of the Roman Catholic Church in its present state (not far removed if at all removed from its origins) puts forward many issues of what can only be considered heresies by Biblical Christianity. I am familiar with the rites of the Mass and its basic history within the RC system. I have been to the Mass given in its current form in America in English as well as the Tridentine Rite in Latin enough to be able to speak on the issue from first hand experience. I have lived long enough to witness the variants of the rite throughout Catholicism as well as some Protestant churches. And though I do not speak Latin, I am versed in the church dogma and past traditions regarding the Eucharist.
I will, therefore, answer the greatest issues of concern in regard to the Mass. I feel it is necessary first to look at the scriptural foundation of the Lord's Supper in brief.
"And he said unto them, 'With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, 'Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.' And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, 'This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!'" Luke 22:15-22
"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.' After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, 'This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.' Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:23-27
Now before getting into any discourse on any blasphemous trait of the Mass, let us ask a few important questions. In other pages we have referred to times where people take direct statements from symbolism and symbolism from direct statements adding or removing meaning to support an interpretation. Let us examine these passages and ask a couple questions.
First, you will notice I quote one of the gospel accounts of the last "Passover" of our Lord as well as Paul's account of the same Passover meal. Why? So that we have the event described by the Word (God), then, we have a description of practice of the rite or sacrament from the early church apostles. If the Eucharist is a rite of the early church carried on by the Roman Catholic Church to this day, shouldn't the RCC Eucharist and its rites be in perfect keeping with the early church accounts of their practices of it?
I believe the answer is YES. If you are making a claim of tradition uniting your practice to that of the Early Churches, then, your rite and their rite must be the same. If it isn't someone is the wrong rite. If the rite does not agree with the actual description given by the Apostle Paul to the first churches and Christians, anything else or any other ritual must have another source than the Apostolic practice of the Passover celebrated by Jesus (If B=A then it must follow that A=B). As that is the logical and biblical fact of the matter, then, does the RCC "offering" of the mass match the accounts we have just read where Jesus does not offer himself? Also, does Jesus or Paul even imply that the Passover meal have ANY salvational or cleansing properties or value?
Next question, Is the bread Jesus gives the disciples to eat broken? Yes, in both accounts. We could look to another Gospel account for the reason it is broken ,but, Paul explains it with his quote of our Lord, "this is my body, which is broken for you".
Does He mean His literal body is broken? YES. His body is to be broken and therefore the bread is broken in accord with the events of His death.
Does He mean the disciples are eating His literal
One: Do we see Jesus saying an incantation over his
bread converting it into His flesh?
We see that the direct reading of the Word is the correct reading of the Word. You cannot have it both ways. If Jesus meant that the bread was His flesh and would transform into His flesh ("transubstantiation"), the text would have read something like, "He blessed the bread and it became His flesh and then He broke His flesh and did give them to eat of it, saying..." But it does not read thusly. As a matter of fact the Catholic Encyclopedia points out the the concept of transubstantiation was formed or laid out (see their words in the link above) in around 1079. This is at least 1000 years after Jesus served Passover without any incantations, mention of actual transformation, etc.
Can you argue that He was present at the Passover, therefore, He did not have to transubstantiate? Of course not, if the "host" were Biblical, then, the first bread of the Passover would have had to be the same "host", same flesh, same blood. Obviously, the text says what Jesus did and said and nothing more and is then a symbolic gesture. As usual, God taught finite man with an object lesson and symbolism that they might understand the mystery of an Infinite God. If it was meant literally and had literally happened then all further references by Paul should have the same reading, the same style discussing the literal body of the Christ being eaten. It is not literal in either passage. That means forever after, the Passover of Jesus or Lord's Supper must always be taken as a symbolic rite without the "fleshly presence" of our Lord.
Where then do we see the practice of eating of gods or flesh? In pagan rites and rituals. The Free Masons even have a communion supper like this where they too claim to eat the very particles of the body of Jesus, too which they add also the bodies of Buddha and other so-called gods and prophets. Research out the cult of Mithras, the cult of Nimrod and the Babylonian Mystery religion. You will find that they have these rites where they ate the sun god Mithras as a part of Mithraic rites and a derivation of the "mother-son" cult (which again ties to the ancient Babylonian Mystery religion). Is that why the wafer is round like the sun and is NOT broken by the priest? Is that why the Lord's Supper is held in the morning mass like the sun worshipping religions did, eating the sun god every morning?
I know this is a lot of reading. it is a lot of typing, too. But, there are so many aspects to the problems of the RCC Eucharist and Biblical Christianity. We have only really covered one. Let us go on to the way that the Mass is "offered" and not "in remembrance of" Jesus. Jesus said 'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.' He is NOWHERE in scripture quoted as saying this is an offering of me. He said, 'This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me".
Had He died yet? So, He was speaking of the cross to come symbolically. Otherwise, He would have had to sacrifice Himself to God at that moment and would not have made it to the cross. I am trying to make certain you see the clear meaning of direct statements made about a symbolic teaching. Jesus did not offer Himself. But, before He even died did He not commemorate His sacrifice?
Why Passover? Jesus celebrated Passover in this new way with Jews who understand the importance of Passover. Passover is the celebration of the "passing over" of houses of the Jews in Egypt by God when he slew all the first born of Egypt (Exodus 12). The significance of Passover to all of us is that the blood of the Lamb is applied on the house so that God will not punish that house with death. The blood is that of the lamb that each household killed. What was Jesus saying? He was showing them that He was the lamb. He was the messiah, He who would lay down his life for the whole world (John 3:14-17).
As we know now why He had to explain the Passover to
His disciples and established the "Lord's Supper", we come to the
question "Was the lamb slain for Passover killed over and over as in the
'offering' of the mass as a continued sacrifice?" No.
(The Old Testament of Blood)
We see in this passage that a sacrifice must be a blood offering to atone for sins. That means that if the Eucharist is a sacrifice, it is useless on its face because there is no blood. Secondly, the entire passage absolutely refutes any claim that a man can call the body of our Lord down from Heaven and offer Him again unto God. By definition, this is blasphemy because we see in this passage and throughout the book of Hebrews that Jesus is our high priest ("Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 6:2). And, in the passage above He is the one offering Himself to God the one time, anyone else trying to offer Jesus as a sacrifice is blaspheming God. That is because Jesus is God and you cannot take on the title or right of God. (I will not argue for the deity of Christ here because if you do not believe the Jesus is the "I am", you are not a Christian and you will die in your sins (John 8:24).
Also, we see that He suffered from the foundation of earth and must suffer if there is additional sacrifice. A second or repeat sacrifice is absolutely unscriptural. Look to Revelations and the name of Jesus to confirm the statement above...
"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Revelations 13:8
Jesus is the Lamb and the Lamb of the Lamb's Book of Life (Jesus book of the names of the children of God) is the "Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the earth". He is eternal and was already the victim of our sins from the beginning of this world. If that isn't enough, I cite more scripture once for all offering and on the open shame of a repeat sacrifice of the Lamb.
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" 1Peter 3:18 (Underline added)
"If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Hebrews 6:6 (Underline added)
Jesus suffered the death of the cross once and only once. So, if Jesus were crucified or offered a second time, He is openly shamed by it. The sad thing is that we have to give a written explanation of the obvious truth of the direct statements that contradict Roman Catholic teachings on the Eucharist. Not only that, we have to quote a second passage that directly contradicts the teachings and traditions of the Mass. To re-affirm the obvious.
For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Rom 6:7-10 (Underline added)
At this point, I could go on with other aspects of the Eucharist such as venerating the wafer that are blasphemous. However, if the truth of the Word of God presented above has not made you think long and hard about your participation in and acceptance of the unbiblical Eucharist, further explanation is a waste of time and becomes merely an exercise in logic for my own benefit. Therefore, I will stop here. As you have read, I have applied as little opinion or interpretation of my own as is humanly possible for any exposition of scripture. We have used scripture upon scripture to interpret scripture. We do have to exercise a little logic and definitions to come to the conclusion we have. Still, the conclusion remains.
If you have read and reread the scriptures provided against the teachings of catechisms, encyclicals, encyclopedia references and teachings of the RCC, you surely see the problems. You must think about the ramifications of doing something contrary to the Word of God. It is a choice you are brought to now. Do you please men or your God? I do not like one verse quotes, but, here is a short and in context verse that answers the Christians position when he or she is caught between pleasing men and doing that which pleases God. Paul says,
"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galations 1:10
This page is not an attack on you personally, but, a Biblical answer to what you are being taught in catechism and what you are witnessing in Mass. We hope you will think gravely on the spiritual consequences of pleasing men and thereby failing to serve God. If you wish to choose to serve God even when it means disagreeing with men, read this shorter page on the Choice Before You