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



Friday, March 24, 2017
Date Posted:
5/1/1998

Contents
Introduction (1-6)
The Bible (9-23)
The Pope (24-42)
The Sacraments (43-51)
Confirmation (53-54)
Lord's Supper (55-78)
Priesthood (79-94)
Matrimony (95-97)
SIN (98-107)
Forgiveness (108-122)
Indulgences (123-127)
Penance (128-141)
Purgatory (142-159)
Mariolatry (160-187)
Angels (188-208)
Reformation (210-213)
Patrick (214-228)
Ecumenism (229-240)


The Lord's Supper (55-78)


A Concise Guide to Bible Christianity and Romanism
Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley


  1. What is the Lord's Supper?
  2. What does the word 'Eucharist' mean?
  3. How does the Church of Rome define the Eucharist?
  4. What is the teaching of Rome with regard to the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper?
  5. Has the Church of Rome always taught this doctrine?
  6. What has Rome built upon the doctrine of Transubstantiation?
  7. How does Rome define the Mass?
  8. Is the Mass according to Rome a different Sacrifice from that of Calvary?
  9. What is the objective of the Mass according to the Church of Rome?
  10. What does the New Testament teach us concerning our Lord's offering for sin?
  11. How does Rome contradict the teaching of the New Testament concerning the Priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ?
  12. How is Transubstantiation effected according to Rome?
  13. What is the correct interpretation of the words: 'This is my Body and this is my Blood'?
  14. What is the correct interpretation of John 6:54: 'Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day'?
  15. What other Scriptural facts prove the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation is a lie?
  16. Does the Church of Rome in the Sacrifice of the Mass follow the command of our Lord Jesus Christ?
  17. In what language has the Mass been celebrated?
  18. What is the teaching of the Free Presbyterian Church with regard to the language in which public worship ought to be conducted?
  19. Has Rome's Doctrine of Transubstantiation given rise to abominable superstitions and idolatrous abuses?
  20. What is the unanswerable question which the priest of Rome must be asked?
  21. How does Rome's own two admissions expose the deceit of her Mass dogma?
  22. Sum up how the Mass is opposed to Scripture and the senses.
  23. How did Vatican II confirm Rome's doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Mass?
  24. Does Rome enrich herself by the Mass?

Back to Top 55. What is the Lord's Supper?

'The Lord's Supper is a Sacrament wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, His death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are not after a corporal or carnal manner but by faith made partakers of His Body and Blood with all His benefits to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.' The bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, and the command of Christ is: 'Do this in remembrance of Me.'

Back to Top 56. What does the word 'Eucharist' mean?

The word 'Eucharist' means 'thanksgiving', and as so understood is unobjectionable, but it means something different to the Church of Rome.

Back to Top 57. How does the Church of Rome define the Eucharist?

Rome teaches that 'the Eucharist is the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine'.

Back to Top 58. What is the teaching of Rome with regard to the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper?

The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that the bread and wine are changed 'truly, really and substantially into the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity and the bones and sinews of Christ'. This doctrine is known as Transubstantiation.

Back to Top 59. Has the Church of Rome always taught this doctrine?

No, it was adopted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It was finally sanctioned by the Council of Trent in 1551.

Back to Top 60. What has Rome built upon the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

Rome has built upon this doctrine the service which she calls the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Back to Top 61. How does Rome define the Mass?

Rome defines that 'in the Mass there is offered to God a true, propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead, and that in the most Holy Sacraments of the Eucharist there are 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. Under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire and a true Sacrament.'

Back to Top 62. Is the Mass according to Rome a different Sacrifice from that of Calvary?

The Mass, according to the Church of Rome, 'is not a different sacrifice from that of the Cross, it is the very same sacrifice though offered in a different way'. The Mass and Calvary 'are both one and the same Sacrifice because the victim is the same, to whit Jesus Christ, and the High Priest or principle offerer is the same in both, to whit Jesus Christ.'

Back to Top 63. What is the objective of the Mass according to the Church of Rome?

The objective of the Mass is: 'In this Divine Sacrifice which is performed in the Mass, the same Christ is contained and is bloodlessly immolated, Who once offered Himself Bodily upon the Cross: the Holy Council teaches that this Sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that by its means, if we approach God, contrite and penitent, with a true heart, and a right faith and with fear and reverence, we may obtain mercy, and obtain grace in seasonable succour. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation of this Sacrifice, granting grace and the gift of repentance remits even great crimes and sins. There is the one and the same victim, and the same person who now offers by the ministry of the priests, who then offered Himself upon the Cross: the mode of offering only being different. And the fruits of that Bloody offering are truly most abundantly received through this offering so far is it from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore it is properly offered according to the apostolic tradition, not only for the sins, pains, satisfaction; and other wants of the faithful who are alive, but also for the dead in Christ who are not yet fully purged.'

Back to Top 64. What does the New Testament teach us concerning our Lord's offering for sin?

The New Testament teaches in Hebrews 10:11-15: 'And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes 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. From henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.'

Hebrews 7:24-25: 'But this man, because He continueth ever, hath unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.'

Hebrews 9:22-26: 'And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For them 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.'

These Scriptures teach plainly that the Priesthood of Christ is unchangeable and cannot be transferred to others; that His offering was one offering offered once and for all; and that His offering was the offering of His shed Blood unto God; it was a bloody sacrifice, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.'

Further, it was a better Sacrifice. His one Sacrifice and Offering combined all the offerings: the burnt offering, the peace offering, the meat offering, the sin offering and the trespass offering. It is better as it has eternal efficacy. It is better because it comprehends all in its scope. It is better because it cleanses the conscience. It is for us, He presents an Offering of inexhaustible merit which needs no renewing. In the Mass the lamps before the altar are significant of the imperfection of the offering of those who have to renew their light day by day.'

Back to Top 65. How does Rome contradict the teaching of the New Testament concerning the Priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ?

The Church of Rome contradicts the plain teaching of the New Testament by affirming that Jesus Christ has appointed on earth a special new priesthood whose work is to offer Him as a sacrifice for sin, and also by asserting that there Mass is a repetition of the Sacrifice of the Cross through Transubstantiation. Rome teaches: 'Christ 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 has 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.'

Back to Top 66. How is Transubstantiation effected according to Rome?

According to Rome, 'The bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the priest when he says the words "This is my Body and this is my Blood" in the prayer of consecration known as the canon of the Mass, when he says the prayer of consecration with full intention.' That prayer is known as the canon of the Mass.

Back to Top 67. What is the correct interpretation of the words: 'This is my Body and this is my Blood'?

These words of Jesus must be interpreted spiritually. The bread and wine are symbols of His Body and His Blood. As Jesus was present in person at the Last Supper when He said: 'This is my body', and His whole Body was present, these words must have been symbolical. At the same time Jesus' Blood had not been shed, therefore the words 'This is my blood' must also have been symbolical.

When debating Tom Corbishley, the head of the Jesuit Order, I put to him the question which he was never able to answer. Did he believe, when Jesus said: 'I am the door', that Jesus was a literal door with four panels, a handle and a keyhole? - and when Jesus said: 'I am the true vine',did he believe that Jesus Christ was the literal trunk of a vine tree?

Figurative language such as this is used every day. For instance, a portrait of a person is painted and one describing it says: 'This is Mr. So and so.' Now he does not mean that it is literally the person who is portrayed: he means rather that it is a representation of the person who is portrayed.

'This is My Body' - that is the divinely appointed representation of My Body.

'This is my Blood' - that is the divinely appointed representation of My Blood.

Christ emphasised that His Feast was to be a remembrance one. 'This do in remembrance of Me.' You can only remember a person when he is not literally and bodily present with you. If Christ is literally and bodily on the altar, as Rome proclaims, then the Feast ceases to be one of remembrance, and that destroys the very foundation of the Lord's Supper.

Back to Top 68. What is the correct interpretation of John 6:54: 'Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day'?

This passage can have no direct reference to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper because the evident fact is that two Passovers (the Passover was a yearly feast) elapsed between the delivery of these words and the institution of the Sacrament (compare John 6:4 with John 12:1); but Christ uses the present tense: 'Except ye eat.' It was their duty right away to eat of that spiritual food, even at the very time when He was delivering His discourse; therefore the words cannot refer to a Sacrament not even then instituted. Even Rome herself does not receive the absolute literacy of these words, for it says here that the Blood must be drunk; yet for centuries Rome refused the wine to her communicants.

If the words 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have no life in you' referred to the Sacrament and were to be understood literally, this would prove that all who do not receive the Sacrament must perish, yet baptised infants who have not received the Sacrament, according to Rome, are saved. Moreover, if it is received literally then it proves that all communicants are saved. Rome herself will not admit that that is the case. Then what does it mean?

The Scriptures are the best interpreters of themselves. It says in verse 58: 'He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.' Compare that with John 3:36: 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.' There are not two ways of salvation, one by the Sacrament and the other by faith. Eating the bread is a representation of what happens when a person believes, he partakes of everlasting life through the Son of God. Verse 35 of the chapter gives the key to the interpretation: 'He that cometh to me shall never hunger' - that is, eating Christ's flesh. How do we eat Christ's flesh? By coming to Him.

'And he that believeth on me shall never thirst.' How do we drink Christ's Blood? By believing on Him. We feed on Christ by coming to him. We drink His Blood by believing on Him. Salvation is by faith alone.

In verses 62-63 the Saviour explains His meaning clearly. He says: 'What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before. It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh (mark the words) profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.'

What was Christ saying? He was saying: 'Do you think that I am speaking of My literal flesh? But my literal flesh shall ascend to heaven, far beyond the reach of being eaten by man. The flesh profiteth nothing. Even though you were to partake of My body, it would not save your souls. The words that I speak unto you, they are the spirit, and they are the life. They have a spiritual signification and they show that you must feed on Me by faith, for he that cometh to Me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst. Jesus constantly used figurative language in order to enforce the truths which He taught. Instances of such figurative language are found also in Isaiah 55:1-3; John 7:37-39; Matthew 16:5-11.

Back to Top 69. What other Scriptural facts prove the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation is a lie?

ONE: The Lord's Supper was commemorative as was the Passover. The Passover Lamb commemorated the Passover, when the Lord said 'this Passover' He meant this commemoration of the Passover. Likewise when He said: 'This is my body,' He spoke of the Supper as a commemorative feast to be observed in remembrance of Him.

TWO: The apostolic reception of Christ's words. The apostles, it is evident, understood our Lord as we do. They were accustomed to figurative language in which the Saviour constantly spoke and which was the current language of the day. There was no argument at the Table concerning these words: 'This is my body', 'This is my blood', for the disciples knew He was speaking in figurative language.

THREE: The Feast is commemorative from Christ's own words: 'Do this in remembrance of me' and from the apostolic declaration: 'For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come.' (I Corinthians 11:26.) How could it be done in remembrance of Him if He were literally present in Body, Blood, Soul and Deity?

FOUR: The words themselves refute Transubstantiation; the apostolic account is destructive of this dogma. It says in I Corinthians 11:23-26 that the cup is the New Testament: here is a double figure of speech. Firstly the cup is put for the wine and secondly the cup is called the New Testament.We ask: Was the cup literally transubstantiated into the New Testament? Notice the apostle used the word: 'After the same manner He took the cup' - that is, the manner in which He took the bread. It therefore cannot and does not mean that the bread was literally Christ's Body or the wine literally Christ's Blood, or the cup literally the New Testament.

Back to Top 70. Does the Church of Rome in the Sacrifice of the Mass follow the command of our Lord Jesus Christ?

No. Even apart from the idolatrous error of the doctrine of Transubstantiation the Church of Rome does not follow the command of our Lord, because the Church of Rome holds that the Mass can be celebrated without the communion of the people, and the cup can be withheld from them.

'The dogmatic principles laid down by the Council of Trent remain intact. Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to the clerics and religious, but also to the laity in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See.' (Chapter 2 Paragraph 55, of he Constitution of Sared Liturgy, 4.12.63)

ADDITION HERE

One of the dogmatic principles of the Council of Trent was: 'Under either kind alone, Christ is received whole and entire, and a true Sacrament.'

Back to Top 71. In what language has the Mass been celebrated?

Up until Vatican II the Mass was universally celebrated in the Latin tongue and some services are still in the Latin language.

Back to Top 72. What is the teaching of the Free Presbyterian Church with regard to the language in which public worship ought to be conducted?

Public worship ought to be conducted in the mother tongue of the people so that, as Scripture commands, they may worship God in truth and understanding with all their heart, with all their soul, with all their mind and with all their strength.

Back to Top 73. Has Rome's Doctrine of Transubstantiation given rise to abominable superstitions and idolatrous abuses?

Yes. Revolting superstitions and idolatrous abuses have arisen out of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. For example, it has given rise to the Feast of Corpus Christi. Corpus Christi means 'the body of Christ', when the host is carried round as a god and is worshipped. Also revolting rules and dogmas have been laid down by Rome concerning the correct procedure should a fly or spider fall into the consecrated wine, or the priest vomit into the wine, or a mouse nibble the consecrated bread or host.

'If any one shall say that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of lateria, and therefore not to be venerated with any 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 has not to be publicly set before the people to be adored and that his adorers are idolaters, let him be accursed.'

As the host is mere flour and water, simply a pancake, we refuse to adore it, for God is not made by hands nor can He beworshipped by anything that man makeswith his hands. Psalm 135:15: 'The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.' In Acts 19:26 the apostles likewise preach: 'They be no gods which are made with hands.' How could they have thus preached if they believed that the wafer was God?

'If after consecration a fly hath fallen or anything of that sort, and nausea be occasion to the priest he shall draw it out and wash it with wine, and when the Mass is finished burn it, and the ashes and lotion shall be thrown into the sacrarium, but if he hath not a nausea or fear of any danger he shall drink them with the blood.'

'If the priest vomit the Eucharist, if the species appear entire, let them be reverently swallowed unless sickness arise, for then let the consecrated species be cautiously separated and laid up in some sacred place till they are corrupted.'

'If through negligence any of the blood of Christ hath fallen on the floor, on the ground, or on the boards, let it be licked up with the tongue and let the spot be sufficiently scraped, and the scrapings burned and the ashes laid up in the sacrarium.'

Back to Top 74. What is the unanswerable question which the priest of Rome must be asked?

What do you break when you break the consecrated host in the Mass, as you do, putting one portion into the chalice and partaking of the portion yourself? You say the whole substance of the bread is gone but you have broken some substance. What is it? It cannot be bread, for by your showing it is not there. It cannot be the Body of Christ, for if you say He cannot be broken the immortal and impassible, what is broken when you break the host?

Yet that the subject is so solemn that one would feel amused at the way in which Rome has provided for the disappearance, corruption etc. of her transubstantiated host. For example, 'if the host be putrified or musty or lost, or if a mouse eat it, through carelessness'. We ask again: What is it that becomes corrupted? It cannot be the accidents of smell, taste, look and colour. Rome tells us there is no substance there, but that of the Body of the Redeemer, but surely that cannot corrupt. One must conclude that after all has been said an done there is nothing but bread, consecrated no doubt, but bread still.

Back to Top 75. How does Rome's own two admissions expose the deceit of her Mass dogma?

'The Church of Rome teaches that the Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice and secondly that by it the remission of sins are procured, both for the living and for the dead. We can thus argue, the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice, remission of sin can be obtained by the Mass; therefore remission of sin can be obtained without shedding of blood. But God says in His Word: 'Without shedding of blood is no remission.' Shall we not rather put it thus: 'Without shedding of blood is no remission. In the Mass there is no shedding of blood, therefore in the Mass there is no remission.'

Back to Top 76. Sum up how the Mass is opposed to Scripture and the senses.

ONE: Christ is bodily absent. The Bible teaches that Christ is bodily absent from us. He is not at this moment with His people in the flesh. He said: 'I go to prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also.' (See John 14)

TWO: The law forbids the use of blood. The doctrine of the Mass involves a breach of the law of God. The law in Leviticus 17:14 forbids the people to partake of blood. The law was ratified under the Gospel dispensation in Acts 15:28 where the council at Jerusalem stated that there could be no partaking of blood. If the law of God declares there can be no partaking of blood and such a partaking is a violence to God's holy law, how sinful must those be who claim they are partakers, not merely of the blood of an animal but of the blood of the Godman!

THREE: Christ will come Bodily only at His Second Advent. The New Testament knows nothing about any doctrine that Christ comes Bodily to every altar at the whim of a bachelor priest, but the Bible states clearly: 'This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into Heaven.' Acts 1:11.

FOUR: Christ is not subject to humiliation. The doctrine of Transubstantiation - the Mass which represents that Christ is now humiliated and offered again upon the altar as a sacrifice - is totally opposed to Scripture truth. Christ's humiliation has terminated. He enjoys the reward of His sufferings. He is exalted to God's right hand, and no more humiliation can be His in His fleshly body.

FIVE: Christ's Body is not corruptible. Psalm 16:10: 'Neither wilt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption.' Yet the so-called Body of Christ in the wafer corrupts continually.

SIX: The host is the work of man's hands, as we have already seen. It is made of flour and water and baked upon the fire.

SEVEN: Transubstantiation destroys the nature of a Sacrament. It destroys the nature of a Sacrament for it sets aside the great object of our Lord's institution of His Supper. We have already seen that this was instituted in remembrance of, and to proclaim His death till He comes. If the host be Christ Himself it is not a remembrance of Him, nor is it a Sacrament or sign or remembrance of the thing signified if it be the very thing itself. 2 Corinthians 5:16: 'Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.'

EIGHT: The Senses and Transubstantiation. It subverts the evidence upon which all human belief and Christianity themselves rest. All our knowledge is ultimately derived through the senses which are five - sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. Were it not for the senses the apostles and we ourselves could know nothing of Christ. They saw and heard Him, the appeal to the senses as the highest evidence. 1 John 1:1: 'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of Truth.' Acts 1:3: 'To whom also He shewed Himself alive, after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.' Deprive man of his senses and he can know nothing. The apostles on the evidence of two senses believed Christ. On the evidence of all our senses we disbelieve Transubstantiation. The eyes see, the ears hear if the wafer falls on the ground, the nose smells, the hand feels, the palate tastes. The wafer is not a human body; it is only a flour and water pancake.

Back to Top 77. How did Vatican II confirm Rome's doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Mass?

VATICAN II - THE DOCUMENT DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH (21.11.64):

'Taking part in the Eucharist Sacrifice which is the font and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the Divine victim to God and offer themselves along with it.' (Chapter 11 Paragraph 2)

VATICAN II - CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY (4.12.6):

'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. By His power He is present in the Sacraments.' (Chapter 1, Paragraph 7)

'At the last Supper on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the Sacrifice on the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again.' (Chapter 2, Paragraph 47)

'They should give thanks to God by offering the immaculate victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him they should learn to offer themselves.' (Chapter 2, Paragraph 48)

'The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remain intact.' (Chapter 2, Paragraph 55)

ADDITION - Catechism 309

Back to Top 78. Does Rome enrich herself by the Mass?

Yes. One very prominent feature of the Mass as conducted in the Roman Church is the financial support it brings in. It is by all odds the largest income producing ceremony in the church. In Ireland there is a saying: 'High money, high Mass; low money, low Mass; no money, no Mass!'

Back to Top

http://www.ianpaisley.org
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.