Rome’s Doctrine of Transubstantiation refuted.



 This contents of this written document will take quotes from books that are public domain and no longer covered by copyright protection.These articles are not about Roman Catholic People but about Roman Catholicism.

Rome’s Doctrine of Transubstantiation refuted.

The Roman Catholic Mass holds no scriptural bases for its practices. The practice known as transubstantiation is a fundamental core practice of worship, according to the Church of Rome itself. In the times we live in, many protestant evangelicals do not realise the severity of this doctrine, in terms of the severe and extreme demands it makes on a person’s faith. For the Roman Catholic, they have a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true, even in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge.

Today increasing numbers of evangelicals are accepting the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) as a Christian Church and regarding Roman Catholics (RC) as their Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet many are naive and openly ignorant to Roman Catholicism’s own belief system. The teachings of the RCC itself are based on no supported evidence, this is particularly true to their claims on the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

This is one of many areas of Catholic doctrine, that contradicts Holy Scripture, yet in spite of this, many Christians are willing to accept unity with Rome. Many persons within Christendom are not willing to consider that Rome cannot base its teachings and claims on anything that is substantial, this being particularly true of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. If you take Rome’s teachings to their logical conclusion, you will find that many are built on nothing more than superstition, with scripture misapplied and misused to justify its claims.

The Vatican has for the majority of its history forced its teachings and beliefs on past and future generations of Roman Catholics. Although many Roman Catholics are naive to their own faith, most Catholics are in bondage to the institutionalisation of Catholicism itself. This is to say that Roman Catholics have no choice but to believe in what their Church tells them. These days most Catholics keep with family traditions not necessary because they believe in anything the pope teaches, but because of family tradition.

If we look at the Council of Trent, this had been explained:

In his book “Our brief against Rome”, Rev. C.S. ISAACSON, explores from dogma laid down at the Council of Trent, why many Catholics are forced into a position of keeping doctrine such of transubstantiation within its core belief system. Rome decrees:

pp89 [1] Canon I, on the Eucharist: ‘If anyone shall deny that in the Sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, and shall say that He is in it only by sign, or figure, or influence, let him be Accursed.’

Canon II., On the Eucharist: ‘If any one shall say that in the Sacrament, there remains the substance of bread and wine along with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny the wonderful conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole of the substance of the wine into the blood, there remaining only the appearance of bread and wine, which conversion of the Catholic Church most appropriately called Transubstantiation, let him be accursed.’

And again, the council of Trent argued :-

‘ It is therefore indubitable that all true Christians, according to the practice of the Catholic Church, are bound to venerate this most holy Sacrament, and to render to it worship (latreia) which is due to the true God’ (Council of Trent. Cap, v, On the Eucharist).

Pope Pius IV devised the following creed that every Roman Catholic Priest today subscribes and professes: ‘I profess … that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation.’

In 1992 The Roman Catholic Church published a refined official ‘Catechism’ stating the dogmas of its Church – This work was chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – the current Pope. In it, it is written:

Roman Catholic Catechism no.1374: … In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.”

Furthermore as highlighted within the Catechism the outplay of such doctrine shape ritual practice within the Church of Rome which includes the worship of the bread and wine.

Roman Catholic Catechism no.1418: Because Christ himself is present in the sacrament of the altar he is to be honoured with the worship of adoration.

Roman Catholic Catechism no.1378: Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. … reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.

The question remains is there a biblical basis for such dogma?

By what scriptural grounds does the Roman Catholic Church make the claim that the soul and divinity of our Lord is present in the Eucharist (the bread and the wine)? This is nothing more than blatant heresy contrary to what we read in Holy Scripture. Christ taught us to commemorate His death only in memory, nothing more. His death and resurrection celebrated within Holy communion was symbolic only. Anything other than this is simply carnality of mind (Luke 22:19).

Where does any scriptural text explicitly make the claim the substance of the Bread and the Wine changes into anything? There is no justification for any such teaching of this kind. Insted it was devised through the doctrine of men.

In the doctrine of Hypostatic Union, Rome teaches the union of Christ’s humanity and divinity in one hypostasism. The humanity and divinity of Christ are made one according to nature and hypostasis in the Logos. Because the bread and the wine becomes the person of Jesus Christ in substance, this means the bread and the wine becomes God after it has been Transubstantiated. Literally our Lord is present in the Eucharist.

According to Continetur totum corpus Christi scilicet ossa, nervi, et alia. Thos Aquin., summa, tom. Iii, 2, 76, words written in Dens, theol. Tom v. p 276, and in the Tridentine Catechism pt. ii, sec. xxx. De Euchar. Sacr., the entire and whole of Christ is contained in the Eucharist, even the bones and the sinews.

They state it is the same body that was crucified, was buried, rose again and ascended into heaven, which is present in the sacrament under the ‘appearance’ of bread and wine. And so from the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union they add, ‘also his soul and divinity’.

St John Chrysostom wrote a letter to a monk named Caesarius, which can be found in Migne’s Edition Vol iii p 758. In it he describes the process of transformation of the bread and wine.

This only exists in Latin with a few fragments of the original stating “Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus, divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberates est quidem appellation panis : dignus autem habitus dominici corporis appelatoine, eliamsi natura panis inipso permansit, et non duo corpora sed unum Corpus Filii praedicamus.’ “

Translation; ‘For as before the bread is hallowed, we can call it bread; yet, when hallowed by Divine grace through the meditation of the priest, it is released from that name, and is deemed worthy to be called the Lord’s body, although the nature of bread has remained in it, and so we do not speak of the two bodies of the Son, but of one body.’ Or the nature of the bread and the wine not to exist.

Regarding the doctrine of transubstantiation, we never read any of these practices in the early church nor do we read about this anywhere in the scripture, the bread and the wine does not change in substance it remains the same. In my view this is mere superstition that is rooted in Babylonian Mystery Religions.

It is explained from this quote that ‘the savage’ commonly believes that by eating the flesh of an animal or man he acquires not only the physical, but even the moral and intellectual qualities which were characteristic of an animal or man; so when the creature is deemed divine, our simple savage naturally expects to absorb a portion of its divinity along with its material substance. It may be well to illustrate by instances this common faith in the acquisition of virtues of vices of many kinds through the medium of animal food, even when there is no pretence that the viands consist of the body or blood of a Jesus. The doctrine forms part of the widely ramified system of sympathetic or homeopathic magic” (“The New Golden Bough”, Frazer and Gaster, 465). 

The ideology of Transubstantiation was not originally agreed, as we know not all popes were in agreement over this issue. Pope Gelasius I (492-496), in a letter addressed to some bishops said:

“We have ascertained that certain persons having received a portion of the sacred body alone abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred blood. Let such persons…either receive the sacrament in its entirety, or be repelled from the entire sacrament, because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege”. Reference given in the book ‘Our Brief Against Rome’ pp93.

When we look into the explanation of the church before the church in Rome became the Roman Catholic Church in A.D 831, it is shown that many of the Doctors of Theology in the western church opposed this, and the teaching of the Eucharist was only defined under the Article of the Fourth Lateran Council held by Innocent III In 1215.

This says “…the power of the priest is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world. …thus the priest may be called the creator of the Creator…” -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori, p. 33

“If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist (communion wafer), Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the holy Church, or it not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.” Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Original text with English translation, by Rev. H.J. Schroeder, O.P., B. Herder Book Co. 1960, Canon 6

We know that this is nothing more than a theory that came out of Medieval Europe that is no more than a superstitious philosophy. There is nothing of substance that will ever change the form or what is contained in it, that will become anything other than what it is – simply bread and wine either by taste or appearance remains to be so.

This teaching is called the Doctrine of Concomitance. This stipulates that the communion under one kind of species, is the Christ and his divinity is fully present in the bread and wine and in every part of this species – in every particle of the bread and in every drop of the wine, were it not for the fact of concomitance.

To place this under a description is not only revolting and profane, this is nothing more than speculative of Rome’s own authority on the subject. Furthermore the consequences of this takes away faith in the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work on the cross, which is placed beneath a man made institution namely the Roman Catholic Church’s ecclesiastical authority.

The Doctrine of Concomitance provides a basis of the refusal of the cup of wine to be offered to ‘laity’ [2], in case any wished to abstain from alcohol consumption. They would however receive one species alone with the assurance of the fullness of the sacrament. Historically, this application contributed to the 1415 ruling by Council of Constance that the laity should be given only the bread at communion.

What is the Council of Constance?

Council of Constance, (1414–18), 16th ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church. Following the election of two rival popes (Gregory XII in Rome and Benedict XIII in Avignon) in 1378 and the attempt at the Council of Pisa in 1409 to resolve the Western Schism by the election of a new pope, the church found itself with three popes instead of one. Under pressure from the Holy Roman emperor Sigismund, John XXIII, the successor of the Pisa pope, summoned a council at Constance principally to reunite Christendom but also to examine the teachings of John Wycliffe and Jan Hus and to reform the church.

Source: Britanica Encyclopedia
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia

1 Corinthians 11:26-29: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew 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. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

The Doctrine of Concomitance is contrary to scripture in we read in Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

The two scriptures quoted shows how the Doctrine of Concomitance is very much refuted by the Bible and not taught or practiced in through early Christianity.

I have found no scriptural grounds to support the view of Transubstantiation as far as the Church of Rome is concerned. In such matters Rome where places churches authority over biblical supremacy, placing its own interpretive authority based on the leading of carnal wisdom, rather than the leading of the Holy Spirit.

John 6:32-58 is sometimes provided as an apparent scriptural justification for such practices. This says:

John 6:32-58 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

And further..

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

What Rome argues is to take the scripture to the extreme aside from its contextual background. The context spoken within is the manna that was eaten by the Jew in the desert during the wilderness years. This gave them life. Now one greater than Moses was in their midst – the Son of God, who himself is the very Word that became flesh. Its this very Word that would soon be crucified for their sins. It is this Word that must be trusted upon and consumed. The scripture Jesus speaks of are spoken in idiomatic terms, symbolically rather than literally. Further examples of this are the words Jesus used such as John 10:7 ‘I am the door’ and 1 Corinthians 10:4 states that ‘That Rock was Christ’. This also refutes the claim that this referred to Peter in Matthew 16:18, we know from this the references are figurative.

The average Roman Catholic will not appreciate this because the stronghold the Roman Catholic Church has over them through its superstition and church tradition. The words of Christ spoken in Mattew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19 and John 6:51 are worth analysing. In these passages Jesus Himself describes a focus in retrospect; ‘This is my body which was broken or given for you’, and futher , ‘this is My blood of the New testament that is shed for many for the remission of sins’ (Mattew 26:28 and Mark 14:24) this does not speak of the worship and glorification of his blood as Rome teaches.

An understanding of the Passover (Which was the meal that Our Lord shared with His disciples) also allows us to understand the context things are spoken within. . The two main elements of the Passover table are the bread and the wine. The bread used at Passover – ‘The Matzos’, by Jewish Law must be unleavened, stripped and pierced.

Rabbinical tradition teaches that the Matzos is symbolic of the Passover lamb. At the start of the meal the Matzos is broken in two. One section is wrapped in linen and hidden from the children of the house while the other section is replaced on the table. At a designated time during the meal the children search the house for the lost Matzos which has been hidden from the children (of Israel). When it is found it is brought together with the original half and then broken and distributed around the table. Written 1000 years before our Messiah the psalmist wrote:

Psalm 22:16 For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet;

The great prophet Isaiah wrote 600 BC concerning the coming Messiah:

Isaiah 53:4-5 Surely He has borne our griefs, And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors.

That is what our Lord would have demonstrate to His disciples.

Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

This is not a picture of transubstantiation but of the Passover lamb.

There are four cups on the Jewish Passover table. The first two cups are drunk before dinner.
The first one symbolises thanksgiving because of deliverance from Egypt and the second one, the plagues that struck Egypt. The third and fourth cups are drunk after dinner. We read in scripture

Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

The third cup drunk at the Passover table is the cup of redemption. In His blood we have redemption.

Ephesians 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.

The scriptures are to be taken symbolically and as reminder to what Jesus Christ did as an act of his selfless sacrifice as Gods Lamb. In the scripture of John 6:32-58 mentioned, Roman Catholics are advised paid attention to John 6:62 – 63 as this is given very little notice, “[What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.”

This scripture shows us what the Jew’s were saying in John 6:52 How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? In John 6:61 even the decuples themselves “murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?” In verse 62 Jesus says “[What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” in verse 61 and 62 Jesus is saying does it seem impossible that I gave up my flesh to eat while I am on the earth? How much more impossible when I have ascended up to heaven ?

These expression from both the Jews and the Apostles were because they were thinking how can this be in a literal sense, they were thinking with their carnal minds. This is why they did not understand that Jesus was speaking spiritually. Jesus stated this in John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.

This had also been explained by the following:

Tertullian: “This is My Body, that is a figure of My Body.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:40:3, from Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers, vol 1, pg 141)

Augustine: “For the Lord did not hesitate to say, ‘This is My Body,’ when He gave a sign of His Body” (Contra Ardmant., chap. 17, n. 3).

Theodoret, who stays, ” Christ took the Symbol and said, This is My Body. ” (On Eucharistic worship in the English Church BY AN ENGLISH PEESBYTEE.)

Now the common response to the argument derived from the frequent use of such words as symbols, signs, types, antitypes, figures, images, when applied to the Eucharist, is that these words do not imply that the elements (or elemental forms) are only signs, or that the things signified may not be really present as well as the signs.

None of the claims made by the Church of Rome is based on any scriptural explanation concerning our lord’s physical presence being in the substance of the bread and the wine or that this changes its physical sense as the actual body and blood of our lord in the Eucharist.

The only grounds the Church of Rome has on its claims is by the Infallibility of the Church Authority the Pope. The Council of Trent through its cannon law declares it to be true and they do not need to explain how the substance of bread and wine is transformed, they just call it a mystery. Yet none of these claims can be proven from scripture.

[4] On November 13, 1565 Pope Pius IV in his bull “Iniunctum nobis” under the auspices of the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563). It was subsequently modified slightly after the First Vatican Council (1869 – 1870) to bring it inline with the dogmatic definitions of the Council. The major intent of the Creed was to clearly define the Catholic faith against Protestantism. At one time it was used by Theologians as an oath of loyalty to the Church and to reconcile converts to the Church, but it is rarely used these days.

But having read this, Pope Pius VI was writing this on his own interpretative authority and does not need the authority of scripture to back up this doctrine. And so made it an issue that is necessary for Salvation

“Profiteor pariter, in Missa offerri Deo verum, proprium et propitiatorium sacrificium pro vivis et defunctis. Atque in sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento esse vere, realiter et substantialiter Corpus et Sanguinem, una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Iesu Christi, fierique conversionem totius substantiae panis in Corpus ac totius substantiae vini in Sanguinem, quam conversionem Ecclesia catholica transubstantiationem appellat. Fateor etiam sub altera tantum specie totum atque integrum Christum verumque Sacramentum sumi.”

I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that a conversion takes place of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either species alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament.

The reason why this creed does not need to be used because it is already taught in the Eucharist as an absolute article of faith and Catholics are held to this belief because they dare not question the Church Authority.

[5] Cardinal Hosius attacks the scriptures by saying you cannot rely on scripture alone, INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH & Bourse of ILectitres DELIVERED IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN

Cardinal Hosius.* The Cardinal is proving that if you trust only in Scripture, you must be worsted in every conflict with the devil, who can argue out of it much better than you ; and he tells a story of a poor collier who when asked by a learned man what he believed, repeated the Creed, and, when asked what more he believed, answered, 

* I believe what the Church believes.’ * And what does the Church believe ? ‘ * The Church believes what I believe.’

* And what do the Church and you both believer ‘ ‘ The Church and I believe the same thing.’ The learned man was disposed to smile at the collier’s simplicity. But some time after, when he was on his death-bed, Satan tempted him with assaults on his faith, to parry which all his learning was vain, and, every time the Evil One questioned him how he believed, he was glad to reply, * ut carbonarius.’

The Cardinal as well as the Roman Catholic Church rejects the belief that it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us all things (John 14:26 and Matt 28:19). If the Holy Spirit is able to teach all those who believe in Christ there is no need for Catholic priests or the Pope.

The Cardinal here wants us to accept the supposed miracle of the holy sacrament and in this it has been commemorated in the Cathedral of St Gudule in Brussels to this day

The Churches explanation for such a so-called miracle that the species of bread and wine is transformed, is explained in the writings of Karl Von Hase Handbook to the controversy with Rome.

P 235 “the words of consecration spoken by the priest, bread and wine are transmuted into the body and blood of Christ as a charge of their substances (Transubstantiation).

Yet we find no scriptural record of this nor its practices are seen in any portion of scripture, other than based on the superstations and beliefs of the church authority.

In the book P235 it says “Only the appearance (the accidents) of Bread and wine remain, but the body and blood of Christ together with His Soul and Divinity are actually present, in order that they may be eaten, and, in the case of the priest, drunk, that they may be continuously presented to God as a memorial and repetition of the Sacrifice at Golgotha; moreover that they may be adored in the sacred act itself as well as in the subsequent reservation of them. Thus there arose a cult which in the mass, as a festival in which the God-Man is present to the senses, is Calculated to Make a powerful impression upon the religious imagination, and which is as well adapted to draw itself the silent devotion of every day as to form the central feature consecrating great church festivals. That which for over a thousand years have edified and exalted so many generations of men, in any case possesses a share in Christian truth; but the question arises weather that is the complete truth unmixed with errors or abuses. “ End quote

If truth is only found in the scripture then as believers in the Bible we must rest on the scriptures alone. Yet Rome has done a lot to undermine biblical authority, by placing the Church above the scriptures themselves.

In the case of the Bread and the wine, the Bible has given us non-literal expressions of spiritual insight into the symbolic nature of Jesus own words. Roman Catholics may like to take these forms excessively but if we did this we could turn Peter into an actually Rock, as God did to Lots wife by turning her into a pillar of Salt. Even when Jesus spoke in parable, these were stories that had a spiritual application to them and were not literal accounts. Jesus simply used everyday objects like a vine and presented through these symbols deep meanings to them. This also applies to the Lords supper, which was only symbolic and in this sense the whole doctrine and philosophy for the Catholic Eucharist is nothing more than factious.

This is also expressed in other writings such as the book Modern Romanism Examined by Rev H. W. Dearden, M.A, MAY 1927 (P 132) “Transubstantiation is without proof from scripture it will be said by the Romanist “surely the words of Christ are sufficient evidence.

Looking at the words of institution, let it be carefully noticed that our Lord did not simply say, “this is my body”, but “this is my body broken” (1 Cor 11:24) “given for you” (Luke 22:19) not the body glorified but sacrificed and slain. So again our Lord did not simply say “This is my Blood”, but “This is my Blood which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20) ”the new covenant in my blood” the sign of the gospel redemption through the death of Christ. Thus both elements direct our thoughts to the new covenant of grace by “the sacrifice of the death of Christ,” of which the sacrament was to be a perpetual remembrance.

It was also noted in the book ‘The Rome of the Early Church’ published in 1933 P 167 , concerning the primitive church that existed prior to the birth of Roman Catholicism it states, “it is, however, in the commemoration of the Lord’s supper that we reach the heart of primitive worship, and fortunately we have not to grope in the dark to discover the truth about it. Superstition and tradition, and gross error have overlaid its simplicity; but here in the catacombs so near in the time to the Upper Chamber that its light still penetrates so near also in spirit to that Heavenly Banquet to which the guests on earth might be summoned at any moment, we find there is no place for delusion of deception; really stands forth unadorned.

‘Roman Catholicism’ by Lorain Boettner (this is not an endorsement) P 77 still under copywrite 1970 in this we will give short quotations.

“How tradition nullifies the word of God”

Rome also nullifies or destroys the word. She maintains that alongside of the written word there is also an unwritten Word, an Oral tradition, which was taught by Christ and the apostles but which is not in the Bible, which rather was handed down generation after generation by word of mouth. This unwritten Word of God, it is said, comes to expression in the pronouncements of the church councils and in papal decrees. It takes precedence over the written word and interprets it. The pope, as God’s personal representative on the earth, can legislate it for things additional to the Bible as new situations arise.

(P 78) Tradition therefore, for hundreds of years allegedly was transmitted by mere report. And it is this which Rome receives as of equal authority with the written Word. But so unreliable is report that it has become a proverb that “a story never loses in its carriage.” In other words, a story seldom retains its original character without addition and exaggeration.

…in the New Testament itself in which report or tradition circulated a falsehood, showing how easily oral tradition can become corrupted, how in a particular instance it did become corrupted even in the apostolic age. In John 21:21-23 we read: Peter therefore seeing him (John) saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me. This saying therefore went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should not die; but if I will tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Surly we cannot build a Church on such an insecure foundation as oral tradition!

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Hebrews 10:10-12 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

(P 169) It is surprising how many Protestants do not understand the significance of the Roman Catholic mass. Some think of it as merely and church ritual and dismiss it as just another form of the Lords supper or holy communion is a sacrament. That is far from being the case. For protestants and Roman Catholics alike the Lord’s supper or holy communion. For protestants it is a means of spiritual blessing and a memorial service that He rendered for us on Calvary. But for the Roman Catholics it is something quite different. For them it is also a sacrifice, performed by a priest. And its sacrificial element is by far the most important. In fact the sacrifice of the Mass is the central point in their worship.

The Roman Catholic Church Teaches that the Mass is the same sacrifice as on Calvary (P 173)

“The Holy Catholic Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of the Cross inasmuch as Christ, who offered Himself, a bleeding victim, on the Cross to His Heavenly Father, continues to offer Himself in an unbloody manner on the altar, through the ministry of His priests.” 

The Church of Rome holds that the mass is a continuation of the sacrifice that Christ made on Calvary, that it is in reality a re-crucifixion of our Lord over and over again, in an unbloodly manor. Christ supposedly is offered in sacrifice every time the mass is celebrated, that is, daily, in thousands of Roman Catholic Churches throughout the world. The Mass therefore, is not a memorial, but a ritual in which the bread and wine and transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, which is then offered as a True Sacrifice.

In the sacrifice of the mass, the Roman priest becomes and “Alter Christus”, that is, “Another Christ” in that he sacrifices the real Christ upon the alter and presents Him for the salvation of the faithful and for the deliverance of souls in purgatory. The Roman Church teaches that Christ, in the form of a “host” (The consecrated wafer), is in reality upon the altar, and that priests have Him in their power, that they hold him in their hands, and carry Him from place to place.

The So-called sacrifice in the mass certainly is not identical with that on Calvary, regardless of what the priests may say. There is in the mass no real Christ, no suffering, and not bleeding. And the Bloodless sacrifice is ineffectual. The writer of the book of Hebrews says “apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission” of sin (9:22) in John says, “The blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Since admittedly there is no blood in the mass, it simply cannot be a sacrifice for sin. Let us also remember Christ Final words on the Cross, concerning His sacrificial atonement to purchase man’s redemption.

(P 175) A Catechism of Christian Doctrine asks the question: “What is the Holy Mass?” and the answer is given:

“The Holy Mass is the sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, really present on the altar under the appearance of Bread and wine, and offered to God for the Living and the dead.”

The Doctrine of transubstantiation and the power of the priests is clearly stated by Liguori in the following words:

“With regard to the power of the priests over the real body of Christ, it is of faith that when they pronounce the words of consecration, the incarnate God has obliged Himself to obey and come into their hands under the sacramental appearance of bread and wine. We are struck with wonder when we find that in obedience to the words of His priests – Hoc est corpus meum (This is my body) – God Himself descends on the altar, that He comes whenever they call Him, and as often as they call Him, and places Himself in their hands, even though they should be His enemies. And after having come He remains, entirely at their disposal and they move Him as they please from one place to another. They may, if they wish, shut Him up in the tabernacle, or expose Him on the altar, or carry Him outside the Church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others. Besides, the power of the priest surpasses that of the Blessed Virgin because she cannot absolve a Catholic from even the Smallest sin” (The Dignity and Duties of the Priest).

The Priest supposedly is endowed with power by the bishop at the time of his ordination, to change the bread and wine into the literal living body and blood of Christ, which is then known as the “host,” and so to bring Him down upon the altar. That Body is said to be complete in all its parts, down to the last eyelash and toenail! How it can exist in thousands of places and in its full proportions, even in a small piece of bread, is not explained, but is taken on faith as a miracle.

It must not be supposed for a minute that modern Roman Catholics do not literally believe this jumble of medieval superstition. They have been taught it from infancy, and they do believe it. It is the very sternest doctrine of their church. It is one of the Chef doctrines, if indeed it is not the chief doctrine, upon which the church rests.

(P 183) Roman Catholics who take their church membership seriously and who in most cases have had it drilled into them from infancy that in the mass a daily sacrifice is offered for them, find it hard to leave the Roman Church precisely because in the Protestant church they find no mass, and they fear without the mass they will lose their salvation. A devout Roman Catholic regards this matter of salvation through the mass far more seriously than most protestants realize.

The Obligation that rests on a Roman Catholic to attend mass is far different thing from the freedom that protestants enjoy in the matter of church attendance. The Baltimore Catechism says:

“It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them for hearing Mass without a sufficient reason” ( Answer, 390)

As seen from the book mentioned above Roman Catholics have no choice then to attend the Catholic Mass, this has a hold over them as it is a strong obligation for the Catholic, this is based on the authority of the papacy and on the pope, the Catholic mass is the most important practice of the RCC because this is central to the Catholic faith and the act of worship, the Catholics entire bases of Salvation lies with this without it they would be excluded from heaven, so this means it is not only an obligation but it is the duty of the Catholic to attend. Indeed as the Roman Catholic Church holds that salvation is obtained through the sacraments themselves It becomes a necessity to attend and receive the ‘Host’.

Roman Catholic Catechism no.1129: The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. … The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Saviour.

But the Bible teaches:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

After Transubstantiation, the next doctrine explained is that of the Sacrifice of the Mass
‘Our brief against Rome’ 1907 (P 99) considers the question, does the doctrine of the Mass follow after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation?

That is so. Since it is held that the whole and entire Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, is present upon the Altar after the words of consecration have been uttered by a duly ordained priest. It follows that the priest can, and actually does, offer to God the same victim as that which suffered on the Cross even the Lamb of God, our redeemer, on behalf of our sins. This is made perfectly plain by the words used by the Council of Trent on the Sacrifice of the mass.

They are as follows:-

‘Christ instituted the New Passover, Himself, to be by the Church through priests immolated under visible signs. In the Divine Sacrificial which is performed In the Mass, the same Christ is contained, and without blood is immolated, who on the Altar of the Cross offered Himself once with blood, the manner of the offering being alone different.’ Again ‘We confess that it is one and the same sacrifice which is performed in the Mass, and which was offered on the cross, as it is one and the same Victim, viz., Christ our Lord, who on the Altar of the Cross once only with blood offered Himself… whose sacrifice is daily renewed in the Eucharist.’

‘Since the same Christ, who once offered Himself by His blood on the Altar of the Cross, is contained in this Divine Sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, and offered without blood, the Holy Council teaches that this Sacrifice which is really propitiatory, and made by Christ Himself . . . for surely God is appeased by this oblation, bestows grace and the gift of repentance, and forgiveness all crimes and sins, how great soever; for the Sacrifice which is now offered by the ministry of the priests is one and the same as that which Christ then offered on the Cross, only the mode of offering it is different. And the fruits of that bloody oblation are plentifully enjoyed by means of this unbloody one; so untrue is it that the latter derogates from the glory of the former.

Wherefore it is properly offered, according to apostolic tradition, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of living believers, but also for the dead in Christ, who are not yet thoroughly purified.’

(P101) Recap Council of Trent

Canon I. ‘If any one shall affirm that a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God in the Mass, or that nothing else is offered save that Christ is given us to eat, let him be anathema.

Canon III. ‘ If any one shall affirm that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the Cross, let him be anathema.

Canon IV. ‘If any one shall affirm that the most holy sacrifice of Christ finished on the Cross is blasphemed by the Sacrifice of the Mass, or that the latter derogates from it, let him be anathema.

I have quoted these statements made by the Council of Trent at some length, in order to show exactly what the Roman Church teaches. To anyone who has read and carefully studied the Epistle to the Hebrews it is unnecessary to prove how entirely contrary to the Scripture is this Roman teaching. I will only quote the following texts: Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many’: ‘Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for His own sin, and then for the sins of the people; for this He did once when He offered up Himself’; ‘Nor yet that He should offer Himself often (as the Roman Catholics teach), as the High Priest entereth into the holy place every year with the 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.’ (Hebrews 9:28 Hebrews 7:27 Hebrews 9:25-26)

It is very clear from scripture that our Lord was making the Lords supper a figurative and symbolic representation of his death and resurrection.

To Sum up

• The Eucharist (Mass) is not a repetition of Calvary. Jesus died once and for all. All people are free to enter into that once all-sufficient sacrifice by Grace

(The Eucharist is NOT a means by which we receive the Grace of God unto Salvation. Salvation is by Grace THROUGH FAITH ALONE without the need for sacraments).

• Jesus died on the cross in atonement for all sin
(Thus there is no such thing as Mortal and Venial sins–ALL SIN LEADS TO DEATH)

• Jesus will come again
(To bring Judgement against all manner of abominations committed by men.)

• The necessity of the empowering of the Holy Spirit
(To lead a Holy Life so that we may refuse to compromise with the Doctrines of Devils promoted by the Vatican as commanded by the Holy Spirit via Paul)

* Our respect for and obedience to the teaching authority of the Pope and Bishops of the Catholic Church unless that obedience goes against one’s conscience as enlightened by Scripture and Church teaching.

The Biblical Evangelical will never submit to the authority of those who declare themselves to be in “Place of Christ” (Vicarius Christi). There is only one Vicar of Christ–The Holy Spirit! Every Dogma prescribed by Rome is unbiblical and contrary to the revealed Word of God. The Biblical Evangelical surrenders his/her conscience to the Word of God. As John Knox stated to Mary Queen of the Scots when she stated that “My conscience is not so.” Knox replied, “Conscience, Madam, requireth knowledge; and I fear that right knowledge ye have none.”

Subsequent Bishops of Rome in their zeal for temporal power, and their greed for earthly treasures, sought to Christianise the pagans. Rather then Christianise the pagans they only succeeded in paganising the Christian churches. The Vatican has been the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, a moral sewer out of which has proceeded every form of abomination imaginable. Rome has been a House of sexual and spiritual adultery.

Be assured that God has no love for such a body! Why would anyone truly filled with the Spirit of God seek to justify and remain joined to this queen of harlotry?

How does God measure who loves Him and who doesn’t?

John 14:21 & 24 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him…..He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

The commandments given to us include:

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Ephesians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

It is certain that the Roman Catholic Church not only practices idolatry but idolatry is also promoted by this church.

By this statement you cannot be a Biblical Christian and remain a Roman Catholic.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

God Bless

Miguel Hayworth

[1] “Our brief against Rome publication year 1907”.

Comments are closed.

  • This is not a promotion of the Star of David, we give recognition, support to the Jewish people and for the nation of Israel.