EIPS SermonAudio.com
Menu Items
Start Page · Search
Rome In the News
Answers (Q&A)
Audio Sermons
Photo Gallery
Our Guestbook
Errors of Rome
Caustic Comments
History Lessons
Rome & Politics
Sword (Bible)
How To Witness
EIPS Lectures
Other Interest

Thursday, August 24, 2017
Date Posted:

John Paul Marches Rome Back To The Greatest Idolatry – The Blasphemy Of The Mass

The Pope Declares He Seeks To Rekindle “eucharistic Amazement” In An Impassioned New Encyclical - An Exposure By Ian R K Paisley MP, MEP
Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley

In a new encyclical the fourteenth of his 25th year pontificate Pope John II reaffirmed the Church’s traditional teaching on the real presence of Christ in the Mass and the connection between confession and communion and the need to uphold Rome’s laws on intercommunion.  The Pope signed the Ecclesia de Ecuharista on April 17th Holy Thursday during the evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper.

In an article entitled “PONTIFF CALLS FOR A REDISCOVERY OF THE WONDER OF THE MASS” appearing in The Catholic Herald it is stated:

The encyclical will be followed by the publication of new norms on the celebration of the Eucharist, drawn up by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship.  The Pope said the new guidelines were necessary because in some parts of the Catholic world the Eucharist was devalued and celebrated “with disregard for its sacredness and its universality”.

He wrote: “In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned.  In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament.  At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery.  Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet.

“Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation.  This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives, which, albeit well intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith.

“How can we not express profound grief at all this?  The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation.

“I consider it my duty, therefore, to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity.  These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning.  Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated.”

The Pope said that priests and communities that faithfully followed the norms “quietly, but eloquently” demonstrated their love for the Church.

Reflecting on the Church’s relationship with Eucharist since the Second Vatican Council, the Pontiff said Vatican II had led to a “more conscious, active and fruitful participation” in the Mass, but in some cases the Eucharist had been marred by arbitrary innovations.  “It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many,” he wrote.

“A certain reaction against ‘formalism’ has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the ‘form’ chosen by the Church’s great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorised innovations which are often completely inappropriate.”

The Pope reserved some of his strongest words for Catholics who received the Eucharist while still in a state or mortal sin.  The Pontiff issued a stern reminder that Catholics must be in a state of grace in order to receive Holy Communion.

In Britain, attention focussed on the section of the encyclical concerning intercommunion between Catholics and Protestants.  The Pope argued that regular Eucharistic sharing was the end and not the means of Christian unity.

He wrote: “Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established.

“Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith.

“The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth.  In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty, infidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.”

The Pope said Catholics should not receive communion in Protestant churches, because to do so would be to “fail in their duty”.  Similarly it was “unthinkable” that dioceses would substitute Sunday Mass for ecumenical celebrations.

Nevertheless, the Pope emphasised that the Church was still unequivocally committed to the search for Christian unity.

“The treasure of the Eucharist, which the Lord places before us, impels us towards the goal of full sharing with all our brothers and sisters to whom we are joined by our common Baptism.  But if this treasure is not to be squandered, we need to respect the demands which derive from its being the sacrament of communion in faith and in apostolic succession,” he wrote.

The Pope’s comments were interpreted in some quarters as blow to hopes for reunion between Britain’s Catholics and Protestants.  The Times newspaper said the encyclical “crushed” Tony Blair’s chances of enjoying a happy Catholic Easter with his family and represented a setback for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

But last week, Dr Williams said he welcomes the Pope’s letter.


The Anglican primate said: “I welcome the affirmation of the Eucharist as a place of God’s presence and action and also welcome the Pope’s reaffirmation of his ‘burning desire’ for common Eucharistic celebration.  This is an area of work which continues to be important for relations between Anglicans and Roman Catholics and we continue to work theologically on this together.”

Bishop Michael Evans, who was installed last month as Bishop of East Anglia, defended the encyclical on BBC Radio Four’s Sunday Programme.  He said he was “amazed” that the Pope’s comments on intercommunion had been interpreted as an insult to non-Catholics.

The bishop, who is a leading ecumenist, said John Paul II was simply reaffirming the Church’s long-held doctrine of the Eucharist and the Pontiff’s remarks were consistent with the norms of the bishops of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland set out in the 1998 teaching document, One Bread, One Body.

He explained that under the bishops’ guidelines non-Catholics were allowed to receive Holy Communion in Catholic churches if they fulfilled certain conditions.

He also noted that although the encyclical ruled out concelebration of Masses by non-Catholic clergy, it spoke warmly of Catholic priests administering the Eucharist to Christians who were not in full communion with the Church when there was a “grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer”.

He said the encyclical should be seen as an attempt to inspire new wonder and fervour among Catholics for the Eucharist.

Ecclesia de Eucharistia will be published in early May by the Catholic Truth Society.

The Popes insult to all other churches as claiming his church to be the only Church of Jesus Christ in heaven or earth does not concern true Protestants.  They have been not only insulted by Rome for centuries but they have been persecuted, tortured and slaughtered by Rome for centuries.

It is not for our own honour we content but rather for the honour of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Rome’s doctrine of transubstantiation and Rome’s sacrifice of the Mass are the two most blasphemous idolatries ever designed by hell itself to insult the Lord Jesus. 

They claim to crucify again the Lord of Glory and put Him to an open shame.

The real nature of the Romish priesthood must be fully understood.

No better course could be adopted in order to discover the real nature of Rome’s Antichristianity than to examine a textbook, which is a ‘must’ for their priests in preparation for their priesthood.

Such a textbook is ‘Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva’.  (A collection of Materials for Ecclesiastical Retreats. Rule of Life and Spiritual Rules) by St. Alphonsus de Liguori.

Just how high Alphonsus is reckoned in the scale of precedence of Roman saints can be seen from the ‘Notice’ which appears in the preface to the volume.  It concludes with this eulogy ‘LIVE JESUS, MARY, JOSEPH AND ALPHONSUS!’


‘Jesus has died to institute the priesthood.  It was not necessary for the Redeemer to die in order to save the world; a drop of his blood, a single tear, or prayer, was sufficient to procure salvation for all; for such a prayer, being of infinite value, should be sufficient to save not one but a thousand worlds.  But to institute the priesthood, the death of Jesus Christ has been necessary.  Had he not died, where should we find the victim that the priests of the New Law now offer? A victim altogether holy and immaculate, capable of giving to God an honour worthy of God.  As had been already said, all the lives of men and angels are not capable of giving to God an infinite honour like that which a priest offers to him by a Single Mass.’

The above statement is a hideous blasphemy.  ‘Christ died for the ungodly.’

‘God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things by whom also He made the worlds.

Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.’

‘But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.’

The purpose of the Blood-shedding on the Cross was not to institute the massing priesthood of Rome but to purchase the redemption of the people of God.

Any system which holds such an unscriptural view as Rome does of the Work of the Cross is plainly not a Christian system at all but is part of the system of Satan and Antichrist.


“The kings of the earth glory in honouring priests: ‘it is a mark of a good prince,’ said Pope St. Marcellinus, ‘to honour the priests of God.’  ‘They willingly,’ says Peter de Blois, ‘bend their knee before the priest of God; they kiss his hands, and with bowed down head receive his benediction.’  The sacerdotal dignity,’ says St. Chrysostom, ‘effaces the royal dignity; hence thinking inclines his head under the hand of the priest to receive his blessing’.”


“Were the Redeemer to descend into a church, and sit in a confessional to administer the sacrament of penance, and a priest to sit in another confessional, Jesus would say over each penitent, ‘Ego te absolvo,’ the priest would likewise say over each of his penitents, ‘Ego te absolvo,’ and the penitents of each would equally be absolved.”


“Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, since by saying the words of the consecration, he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as a victim to be offered to the eternal Father.  As in creating the world it was sufficient for God to have said, Let it be made, and it was created.  He spake, and they were made, so it is sufficient for the priest to say, ‘Hoc est corpus meum,’ and behold the bread is no longer bread, but the body of Jesus Christ.  ‘The power of the priest,’ says St. Bernadine of Sienna, ‘is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world’.”

“With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God.  And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it.”


The testimony of the historic Christian faith against the apostacy of the Papacy is made crystal clear in the great foundation creeds of the Churches of the Reformation.

Eplsopallan, Church of England

“Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.”

“The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone.  Wherefore the sacrifice of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.”


“There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.”

Of the Lord’s Supper

“In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same, so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.”


John Wesley’s comment on the term ‘man of sin’ in II Thessalonians 2:3.

“However, in many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles.  He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure.  And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly.  He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.  Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-God.  Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, ‘Most Holy Lord’, or, ‘Most Holy Father’, so that he setteth enthroned in the temple of God.  Mentioned Rev 11:1.  Declaring himself that he is God – claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.”

“The offering of Christ, once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, doth original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone.  Wherefore the sacrifice of masses, in the which it is commonly said that the priest doeth offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, is a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit.”


“The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the Church is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is no other than Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God: whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.”


“There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but if (he) is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.”


What John Huss wrote 1371-1415 A.D.

An epistle of John Huss unto the people of Prague, reads: “The more circumspect you ought to be, for that Anti-Christ laboureth the more to trouble you.  Death shall swallow up many, but of the elect children of God the kingdom of God draweth near.  Know ye, well-beloved, that Anti-Christ being stirred up against you deviseth divers persecutions.”

Acts & Monuments, iii pp. 497-9

What Lord Cobham said 1417 A.D.

Lord Cobham, that famous man of God, lived just a century before Luther.  When brought before King Henry V and admonished to submit himself to the Pope, as an obedient child, this was his answer:

“As touching the Pope and his spirituality, I owe them neither suit not service, forasmuch as I know him by the Scriptures to be the great Anti-Christ, the son of perdition, the open adversary of God, and an abomination standing in the holy place.”

What the British Reformers taught

All the English Reformers, including Tyndale, Latimer, Cranmer, Bradford and Jewell, held the Pope of Rome to be the Man of Sin.  So did John Knox in Scotland, and he sounded out his testimony on this subject as with a trumpet.  Knox declared: “The Pope is the head of the kirk Anti-Christ.”  Knox further declared: “As for the Roman Church, as it is now corrupted, I have more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan and the head thereof, called the Pope, to be the Man of Sin of whom the Apostle speaketh, than that I doubt that Jesus Christ suffered by the procurement of the visible Church of Jerusalem.”

What Bishop Ridley wrote 1557 A.D.

Bishop Ridley, who was burnt under Queen Mary, then declared: “The See of Rome is the seat of Satan, and the bishop of the same, that maintaineth the abominations thereof, is Anti-Christ himself indeed: and for the same causes this See at this day is the same that St. John calls, in his Revelation, Babylon, or the whole of Babylon, and spiritual Sodom and Egypt, the mother of fornications and abominations on earth.”

Martin Luther

On December 1, 1520, Luther, published two tracts in answer to the Bull, one of which was entitled ‘Martin Luther against the Execrable Bull of Anti-Christ’.  In its conclusion he admonishes the Pope and his Cardinals no longer to persevere in madness, “no longer to act the undoubted part of the Anti-Christ of the Scriptures.”

What Melanchthon wrote 1530 A.D.

Melanchthon was clear in his convictions that Rome is the Babylon of the Apocalypse, and the Pope the Man of Sin.  In his disputation on marriage, referring to the 1st Epistle to Timothy, he says: “Since it is most certain that the Pontiffs and monks have forbidden marriage, it is most manifest, and without any doubt true, that the Roman Pontiff, with his whole order and kingdom, is the very Anti-Christ.”

What Calvin wrote 1530 A.D.

Calvin wrote: “The arrogance of Anti-Christ of which Paul speaks, is that he, as God, setteth in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God.  For where is the incomparable majesty of God after mortal man has been exalted to such a height that his laws take precedence of God’s eternal decrees?  I deny him to be the Vicar of Christ who, in furiously persecuting the Gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Anti-Christ: I deny him to be the successor of Peter who is doing his utmost to demolish every edifice that Peter built.”

What William Tyndale wrote 1536 A.D.

Tyndale wrote: “Though the Bishop of Rome and his sects give Christ these names (His rightful names), yet in that they rob Him of the effect and take the signification of His names unto themselves, and make of Him but a hypocrite, as they themselves be, they be the right Anti-Christs, and deny both the Father and the Son; for they deny the witness that the Father bore unto His Son, and deprive the Son of all the power and glory that His Father gave Him.”

What John Knox preached 1547 A.D.

Knox, at St. Andrew’s in 1547 A.D. launched the Reformation in Scotland with a sermon on Daniel 7, teaching that the Little Horn was identical with the Man of Sin and Anti-Christ, and signified the Roman Papacy.  The people, on hearing this sermon, cried out: “If this is true we have been miserably deceived.”  Who but the Holy Spirit gave Knox that mighty, two-edged sword?

What Archbishop Cranmer said 1509-1556 A.D.

Cranmer, at his trial, declared: “And forasmuch as my hand offended, writing contrary to my heart, my hand shall first be punished therefore; for  may I come to the fire, it shall first be burned; and as for the Pope, I refuse him as Christ’s enemy, and Anti-Christ, with all his false doctrines.”

On uttering this, Cranmer was pulled down from the stage and led to the fire.

What John Bradford said 1510-1555 A.D.

Bradford declared: “Anti-Christ, which now by the will of God doth rage for the trial of our faith, doth nothing else but procure us a ready horse to bring us to heaven.”

Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and Bradford were burned for their testimony against the Papal Anti-Christ, just as Huss and Jerome and Cobham had been before.  Thousands of martyrdoms have sealed this testimony, and on this testimony rests the foundation of that work, it is to reject the foundation of the noblest and divinest work, which has been wrought in this world since the day of Pentecost.

The Translators of our Bible 1611 A.D.

The Translators of our Bible in 1611, in their preface, declare that in writing in defence of the Truth, which “had given such a blow unto that Man of Sin as will not be healed”, in common with the Reformers, they regarded the dynasty of Popes as the Anti-Christ of Scripture.


Uniformed people conditioned by the ecumenical double talk of the Church Unity advocates, have come to believe that Rome is changing.  This is proclaimed continually from the platforms of the Word Council of Churches.  Evidently their strategy is that if they repeat this lie over and over again, unwary, ill-taught and unthinking Protestants will believe it.

Alas, many have fallen poor dupes to this pernicious propaganda.

The leaders of the Roman Catholic Church have, however, made no secret of the fact that their Church will not change, and that union will be on their terms and on their terms only.

Preaching at a service in St. Aidan’s Methodist Church, Eastbourne, on Sunday evening, 29th January, 1967, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Delegate to Great Britain, Archbishop lgino Cardinale told a congregation of Roman Catholics, Anglican and Methodists that it was no secret that the Roam Catholic Church claimed to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH and envisaged reunion ONLY AS TAKING PLACE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ITS OWN COMMUNION!

Cardinal Heenan, Archbishop of Westminster, declared: “Ecumenism does not mean pretending that all denominations are equally true; it does not mean that the Catholic Church has nothing more than other churches.  The ultimate object of ecumenism is to unite all Christians under the Vicar of Christ – the Pope.”

Cardinal Bea, Sometime head of the Vatican Secretariat for Christian Unity states:-

“No Catholic of education will believe that the (Vatican) Council can or would change even a single dogma.  The Supreme Pontiff and the Council have a duty, inherent in their ecclesiastical authority, to preserve whole and entire the doctrine passed to them by tradition, and no love for the separated brethren can induce us to lay even the lightest hand on the sacred deposit of the faith.”

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Clifton, on his return from the final session of the Vatican Council states, that the Church of Rome had not changed its doctrine ‘one iota’.  The aim and object of the Church of Rome is the conversion of Britain to Roman Catholicism.  The same bishop has declared that “our aim is the conversion of every man, woman and child in England to the Roman Catholic religion, and we must fulfil our charter.”

In a detailed analysis of the ecumenical council’s lasting effects, Pope Paul VI said, “its teachings have brought about no liberation or break from the church’s traditional dogmas, but rather their confirmation and development.”

The Pope, Paul VI, addressing a general audience on the opening day of a week of world-wide prayer for unity candidly acknowledged the difficulties posed by the supreme role which ® Catholic doctrine gives the Pope. He quietly reiterated that he was the authentic representative of Christ on earth!”  “But,” continues the Pope with reference to unity, “it must not take place at the cost of the integrity of the Catholic faith and of our Church discipline, nor must it be guided by an easy criticism of our own things and by an equally easy willingness to copy other people’s things, good and respectable as they may be.”

Pope John Paul II has put the machinery of Rome into over drive back to most abominable dogmas and practices of the Roman Antichristianity.

We need to Read, Study and Digest again the 17th Chapter of the Book of the Revelation.

Back to Top

Email: eips_info@yahoo.co.uk
Return to EIPS Main Menu

Menu Items
- Start Page · Search - Rome In the News - Answers (Q&A) - Audio Sermons - Photo Gallery - Our Guestbook 
- Errors of Rome - Caustic Comments - History Lessons - Rome & Politics - Contemporary - Sword (Bible) 
- How To Witness - EIPS Lectures 
Site best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 in 800x600 resolution.
© 1999 Ian Paisley. All rights reserved.