THE MASS/TRANSUBSTANTIATION
|
||
ROME SAYSThe ‘sacrifice of the mass’ is the centerpiece of Roman Catholic worship. During the Mass, the priest consecrates the wafer of bread and the wine in ‘an un-bloody sacrifice’ oral re-creation of Christ’s crucifixion on the cross. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sums it up this way: 1367 –“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner.” 1414 –“As a sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or benefits from God.” 1365 –“Because it is a memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he ‘poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'” 1366-“ The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
The Council of Trent issued the following Canons concerning the Mass and the Eucharist: Canon 1 – “If anyone shall deny that the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ are truly, really and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, or virtually: let him be anathema.” (Excommunicated= cursed or damned to hell) Canon 2 – “If anyone shall say that Christ, the only begotten son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, given with the open worship of latria, and therefore not to be venerated within a peculiar festal celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy, and universal rights and customs of the holy Church, and that he is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that his adorers are idolaters: let him be anathema.” Vatican Council II reaffirms this position—from The Dogmatic Constitution the following statement: “At the Last Supper, on the night when he was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Holy Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross through the centuries. Thus the Eucharistic Action is the very heartbeat of the congregation of the faithful over which the priest presides. So priest must instruct them to offer to God the Father the divine Victim in the sacrifice of the Mass. Taking part in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the found and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the divine Victim to God, and offer themselves along with it. In the house of prayer the most Holy Eucharist is celebrated and preserved. There the faithful gather, and find help and comfort through venerating the presence of the Son of God our Saviour, offered for us on the sacrificial altar.” Through the miracle of Transubstantiation, the priest changes the wafer of bread and the chalice of wine into the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The wafer and wine retain the appearance of bread and wine; taste like bread and wine; and have the same DNA of bread and wine. When the priest pronounces the words of consecration, this ‘unbloody sacrifice’ takes place. Two main passages in the New Testament are cited in support of this doctrine. Matthew 26:26 – 28 –“Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is My body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” John 6:53 – 55 –“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drink of my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Why does the Catholic Church believe in continuing an on-going sacrifice of Christ in the Mass? To answer this important question, let’s turn to the book, “This Is The Catholic Church,” published by the Catholic Information Service, Knights of Columbus, with the Imprimatur by Reverend John F. Whealon, former Archbishop of Hartford. “Sacrifice is the very essence of religion. And it is only through sacrifice that union with the Creator can be perfectly acquired. It was through sacrifice that Christ Himself was able to achieve this for man. It is only through the perpetuation of that sacrifice that this union may be maintained. What makes the Mass the most exalted of all sacrifices is the nature of the victim, Christ Himself. For the Mass is the continuation of Christ’s sacrifice which he offered through His life and death. Jesus then, is the priest of this sacrifice. He was also the victim, the very object itself of this sacrifice. The Mass is thus the same as the sacrifice of the cross. No matter how many times it is offered, nor in how many places at one time, it is the same sacrifice of Christ. Christ is forever offering Himself in the Mass.” How does the Roman Catholic church interpret a verse like Hebrews 9:12 that clearly teaches Christ’s once-for-all work of redemption? For the answer, we turn to the book, “Crossing the Threshold of Hope,” written by Pope John Paul II (New York: Knopf, 1995), p. 139. He wrote: “The Church is the instrument of man’s salvation. It both contains and continually draws upon the mystery of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. Through the shedding of His own blood, Jesus Christ “constantly enters into God’s sanctuary thus obtaining eternal redemption.”
In order to have a sacrifice Catholicism teaches Jesus Christ must be present and this is accomplished through the mystery miracle of Transubstantiation. This theological term comes from the Latin word Transubstaniato, meaning “change of substance.” This teaching was deemed official doctrine and incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in AD1215. That eighteen letter word, as we shall see, is a complete theological statement and the name of a doctrine out of which springs the most astounding set of beliefs and practices that has ever been taught in the name of religion. Catholicism teaches during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, when the priest says the words of consecration over the bread and wine, something supernatural occurs. They believe Christ instituted the Mass at the Last Supper on the night of His betrayal. When the Lord pronounced over the bread, “This is my Body” (Matt. 26:26) and over the wine, “this is my blood” (Matt. 26:28), He literally changed the bread and wine into His body and blood. Christ then offered them as a sacrifice to the father and gave them to His disciples to eat and drink. The Catholic Church says this was the first Eucharist. At the Last Supper, Christ also told His disciples, “This do in remembrance of Me” (Lk. 22:19). Rome teaches that by these words the Lord ordained His disciples as priests and commissioned them to offer the Mass continually until he returns. Once the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ at the prayer of consecration, Jesus is now upon the altar as a sacrificial victim. He is then offered up as a living sacrifice. After consecrating the bread and wine, the priest prays, “We offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice, the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.” (Liturgy of the Eucharist, First Eucharistic Prayer, the Memorial Prayer) Can these claims be substantiated from official Catholic sources? First of all, let’s turn our attention to the Council of Trent which states: “First of all, the holy council teaches and openly and plainly confesses that after the consecration of bread and wine our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is truly, really and substantially contained in the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of those sensible things.” “But since Christ our redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which he offered under the form of bread, it has, therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This change the holy Catholic Church properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation.” (Thirteenth Session, Chapter 1) Adding to this, we next see what Vatican Council II has to say: “To accomplish so great a work, Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, the same one now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross, but especially under the Eucharistic species. For even in the reserved sacrament he is to be adored because he is substantially present there through that conversion of bread and wine which, as the Council of Trent tells us, is most aptly named transubstantiation.” (Dogmatic Constitution) Finally we read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the matter: 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. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.” We clearly see that the CCC confirms not only the teaching of the real presence of Christ in the Mass but also confirms the fact; the Mass has not changed doctrinally since Transubstantiation was officially declared a dogma of the Church in AD1215. But the Catholic idea states that the substance can change and the appearance remains the same. Since the Catholic Church says that the substance is different, Catholics around the world say it must be since the Church has decreed that it is different. This understanding of Transubstantiation is why Pope Paul VI could say, “When the words of consecration are spoken, the wafer and the wine cease to exist.” They seem to still be there because they look the same. If one tastes the wafer, it still tastes like a wafer. If one smells the wafer, it still smells like a wafer. If one had the wafer in a laboratory and checked its chemical composition, it would still be the chemical composition of an ordinary wafer. But they say it is only the accidents and does not matter. According to catholic theology, what is really important is that the substance has changed and is now the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. If that is true, then that is a wonderful thing. But if it be false, it is “the worst farce and blasphemy ever perpetuated upon God or man and the Catholic faith collapses into nothingness.” (The What And Why of Catholicism) bearing the Imprimatur of the late Cardinal Spellman. |
THE BIBLE SAYSFirst of all, what does history tell us about this matter? Throughout the entire Bible, a sacrifice always denotes a bloody offering to God. Therefore, an ‘unbloody sacrifice’ cannot be possible in the context of the clear teaching of Scripture. The doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass and transubstantiation were not taught by the apostles. There is no record anywhere in the entire New Testament of any church service even remotely resembling the Mass. Justin Martyr writing at the close of the first century AD describes the meetings of Christians on the Lord’s day. He clearly stated that the Christians for took of a simple meal of bread and wine (the Lord’s supper) as a commemoration of the Savior’s death. The well-known letter of Pliny to the Emperor Trajan, asking what offense the Christians had committed that they should be exterminated dates back to the second century AD. In this letter, Pliny clearly stated that the Christians had committed no crimes worthy of death. When they met on the Lord’s Day, they sang hymns to the Lord Jesus and eight a simple meal of bread and wine (the Lord’s supper) as a commemoration of His death. Furthermore, the church fathers of the first three centuries knew nothing of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. None of the Church Fathers prior to the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 new about this doctrine. Secondly, what does the Bible actually teach about this matter? In order to properly understand John 6:53 – 55, we need to understand that Jesus often spoke in figurative language. For instance, elsewhere in John’s Gospel, Jesus refers to Himself as a vine, a door, the resurrection and the life, the good Shepherd, light of the world and in John six the bread of life. As we examine the entire sixth chapter of John, we will quickly discover exactly what Jesus was attempting to teach about Himself. The discourse of this chapter was delivered on the day following the feeding of the five thousand. The people were actually desirous of seeing more miracles and having another free meal and Jesus was chiding them and versus 26, 27 –“Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which parisheth, but for that meet which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the father sealed.” In verses 28 – 36, He clearly speaks of believing on Him and never perishing. Versus 35 – 36 are the pivotal verses of chapter 6. “And Jesus said under them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believe upon me shall never thirst. But I said under you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.” The Jews were obviously looking for more physical bread which would perish. In a figurative style, Jesus is inviting them to experience Him and have eternal life; however, according to verse 36, they were still in unbelief. After these pivotal verses, we find the Jews again murmuring against Jesus in verses 41 – 49 with verse 47 being the key verse. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on Me hath everlasting life.” In verse 51, we also clearly see that the words ‘bread and flesh’ used by Jesus, mean exactly the same thing. Then if we compare verse 56with John 4:14, we discover that to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus simply means to believe on Him. In both verses, it is the one and only condition for obtaining eternal life. In this entire sixth chapter of John then, Jesus is speaking to spiritually lost Jews who have no earthly clue what He is talking about. It then is so obvious and versus 53 – 55, that Jesus could not possibly be speaking about literally eating His body or literally drinking His blood; rather in a spiritual sense. In reality, these words were spoken one full year before Jesus died on the cross and have absolutely nothing to do with the Mass. Thirdly, what did Jesus actually do in Matthew 26:26 – 28? It is obvious that He was observing the Passover with his twelve apostles. This was their final meal together before Jesus was to suffer and die on the cruel cross the next day. Since Christ was still alive when He uttered the words, He had to be speaking once again in figurative language. The twelve apostles could not possibly have eaten His literal body and drank His literal blood. Furthermore, Jesus certainly did not literally eat His own body or literally drink His own blood. Fourthly, what does the rest of the New Testament say about the Last Supper? In Luke 22:19, Jesus clearly tells the apostles to observe the Lord’s supper ‘in remembrance of him.’ Then again in I Corinthians 11:24, 25, we are clearly told by the apostle Paul that the Lord’s supper is to be observed ‘in remembrance of him.’ Also in Exodus 12, we find that when Moses instituted the Passover, he clearly stated, “This is the Lord’s Passover.” the Passover was a memorial of the death Angel that passed over the houses that had the blood applied. This is the type of the believers who having the blood of Jesus applied to their sins, will not experience spiritual death. Lastly, there are many types, figures and symbols of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Bible. However, the Passover Lamb is the most prominent. Christ is often represented as a slain lamb: John 1:36 –“And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!” I Peter 1:19 –“But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot;” Revelation 5:13b –“Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, the unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever.” I often ask my Catholic critics if they missed the classes in high school when figures of speech were taught. Apparently they did! The conclusion of the matter is found in the ninth and tenth chapters of the book of Hebrews. We are told over and over in these two chapters that Christ offered Himself ONCE for our sins. It would do all our Catholic friends well to read these two chapters over and over until they fully understand all the implications. In particular Hebrews 10:11 totally devastates the idea of a priest standing and offering daily sacrifices. Hebrews 10:11 –“And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sins.” Did you get that my dear Catholic friends? The sacrifice of the Mass cannot possibly be a propitiatory sacrifice. As we can clearly see, the former pope has altered Hebrew 9:12 and hence completely changed its meaning. Let’s evaluate his change this verse of scripture. First of all, the pope replaces “He entered in once” with “constantly” so it will read, “constantly enters into God’s sanctuary.” The Greek word for entered εἰσῆλθεν is in the aorist tense, indicating a one-time past event, yet the pope renders it in the present tense “enters.” Likewise, he changed “having obtained eternal redemption” (past tense) so it read “thus obtaining eternal redemption” (present tense). Though the wording of Hebrews 9:12 is changed from what is recorded in scripture, the pope puts it in quotation marks, implying that the source of his words is in fact Hebrews 9:12. The pope’s subtle alterations completely changes the meaning of the Biblical text. The way the pope renders the verse makes it come out sounding like it supports the Mass. This is disingenuous to say the least. In reality, the pope has changed what scripture says. Not even an apostle or prophet of God would ever dare to change what God has said; however, the pope has deliberately done just that. However, the pope’s attempt to change the meaning of Hebrews 9:12 to garner support for the Mass is futile. Apparently, he did not understand the theme of the entire Epistle of Hebrews, which is a “once for all” work of redemption by Christ, and is diametrically opposed to what he was trying to accomplish by changing one verse. Unfortunately, this is what can happen when one exalts Catholic doctrine and tradition and is willing to change scripture to conform to their false teachings. The first part of the word is “trans” which speaks of travel or movement. Webster’s New World Dictionary Of The American Language defines “trans” in this manner: (1) “across, over, a prefix meaning: on the other side of, as in transatlantic (2) so as to change thoroughly.” The prefix “trans” is all about a movement from one place to another place. The part of the word “substance” is about what a thing is. We all have a particular substance. That is what we really are. That is the substance. The last part of the word “ation” refers to action. So combining the three together, we can conclude that Transubstantiation is merely the action of something going from one substance to another substance. It is going from what it used to be to what it is now. For example, if one would change himself into a book by the snap of the fingers, that would be Transubstantiation. So Transubstantiation is merely the action of going from one substance to another substance. What does the Catholic Church teach? They say that at the words of consecration, the wafer, which they admit that before consecration is just a wafer; flour, water and salt. But when the words are spoken by the priest, the wafer is transubstantiated. It changes from one substance to another substance. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-74), the most revered and well known theologian of the Catholic Church, developed this philosophical concept that had been birthed by Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, many years before. Aristotle had merely said that everything is composed of two properties. One of these is called “essence” and the other is called “appearance”. One’s essence is what they really are. Their appearance is what they look like. This philosophy is fully developed in his great work, “Summa Theologica.” So then, the great doctor of the Catholic Church Thomas Aquinas developed a philosophy that was obviously first espoused by a pagan Greek philosopher. Hum! Aquinas took these words and changed them and the words he gave the Catholic Church instead of essence and appearance were “substance” and “accidents.” The word substance is the same as essence. It is what a thing really and actually is. In other words, the book “Summa Theologica” is made of wood. Its substance is what it really is. Next, Aquinas expanded the meaning of accidents because appearance is just what a person or object seems to be. But accidents, he explained, included not only its appearance, but also its taste and its chemical composition. In other words, he said a person’s accidents consist of one’s chemical make up; what one looks like, everything about one that seems to be. For example, if one eats some ice cream, the taste is part of its accidents. Accidents are all the outward characteristics including the chemical composition of a thing. So we clearly see Thomas Aquinas embracing Aristotle’s philosophical concept but modifying it and changing the name of the terms from essence and appearance to substance and accidents. This probably theory simply stated that the accidents (appearance and chemical composition) could change while the substance (what it really is) remains. For example, I could shave my beard and thereby change my appearance; however, my substance has not changed. I have changed my appearance but not my substance. One can change the appearance of something while the substance remains the same. Examining the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas a bit further, we find the following also from his work, “Summa Theologica.” He took Aristotle’s concept and expanded further on it, when he said, “if one can change the appearance and the substance remains the same, so also one could change the substance and the appearance remains the same.” Aquinas flip-flopped the concept. However, there is nothing Biblically or scientific which supports or proves that this is a legitimate concept.
What is the Catholic Church really teaching? They are clearly teaching that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross of Calvary, in and of itself, was incomplete. They are in essence teaching that there is a way of propitiation, of satisfaction for sins, apart from the finished Work of Christ. The Catholic position makes the Work of Christ dependent upon man’s works and actions and not on His completed and finished work of redemption. Does the Bible speak of partial forgiveness such as the Catholic Church teaches? To the contrary! As we already seen in Installment 1 and 2, the Bible proclaims complete and total forgiveness for those who are in Christ. The complete forgiveness that is promised by God in Christ refutes any possibility of the continuing punishment of sin. If the sin is forgiven, God has no basis upon which to punish. I Peter 2:24-“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed.” Ephesians 2:4-6 “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:” Isaiah 53:5 “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” Psalm 103:12 “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.” Furthermore in Jeremiah 31:34 we read “for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” This also means He will not demand the penalty for them either. The real problem here is Catholicism, as a religious system, has never fully understood what the intention of Christ was when he came to this world. Why did Christ enter into human flesh and dwell among the very people he created? In Luke 19:10, we see the answer from His own lips. “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” He came to seek and to save the spiritually lost. And we see in I Timothy 1:15 that the apostle Paul was in full agreement with the Lord Jesus. “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” Paul believed the same as the Lord. That was His intention in coming into the world was to save sinners, those who are spiritually lost. Folks, this is the most important question any searching person can ask. Once you determine the answer, you must ask a further question. Did he accomplish the work for which he came? That is why the Scriptures state the Lord Jesus is the propitiation for sin. This profound truth is found in Romans 3:25. “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” Notice here, the blood of Christ is set forth as the basis for the propitiation. Paul does not state three or four different ways that your sins may be forgiven. He makes it perfectly clear there is only one way of propitiation for sin. Jesus Christ is the only way in which sin can be forgiven, remitted and satisfied. In Hebrews 2:17 we read the Lord’s role as high priest was so that he might make propitiation for the sins of the people. “Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.” There can be no other propitiation if Christ has already atoned for sin. Sin is either propitiated or it isn’t. If Christ functions as the high priest and is the propitiation for a person’s sins, then those sins are completely and fully removed. Furthermore, we clearly see this truth reiterated in I John 2:1-2 and 4:9-10: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he love us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” |
|
