Why I Believe That the Roman Catholic Mass is a Serious Mockery of the Lord's Supper
I'm already used to it and neither am I surprised that there are Roman Catholics who make fun of born again Christian practices. What's even ironic is that they misquote Mark 7:8-13 while rejecting Sola Scriptura. I've already seen them make fun of Scriptural method of baptism which is by immersion all the while they have no real support for infant baptism so I'm not surprised they also make fun of the Lord's supper. I believe that the Mass is making a huge mockery of the Lord's supper in what they do.The doctrine of transubstantiation is not biblical
One of the many reasons why Roman Catholics say that their priests save souls is for this reason: the doctrine of transubstantiation. Here's how the catechism of the Roman Catholic institution defines the doctrine itself:
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body that He was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change 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 has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’
According to Canon 899, Section 1, 1984 this is how transubstantiation is described:
The celebration of the Eucharist [Mass] is the action of Christ Himself and the Church; in it Christ the Lord by the ministry of the priest offer Himself, substantially present under the forms of bread and wine to God the Father and gives Himself as spiritual food to the faithful who are associated with His offering.
In short, it teaches that once the Roman Catholic ordains the bread and wine it has truly become the body and blood of Christ in substance even if the taste and appearance remains the same. They use John 6:32-58 to justify their doctrine but I say they don't know when the Bible is being literal or symbolic. While flames of Hell are indeed literal flames but Satan as a seven headed dragon or the woman being Israel is symbolic.
The very idea that the priest is given the power to change the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus in terms of substance isn't even biblical. First, we must understand what did Jesus mean "this is My body" and "this is My blood." when He instituted the ordinance or sacrament called the last supper? We have to understand that Jesus didn't give the apostles any power to do so. Also, the bread and wine couldn't have turned into His literal body and blood in terms of substance. These were meant to be symbolic like when you say, "This is my mother." but you are pointing to a picture in your wallet and not your literal mother. Hmmm.. didn't they just say that their graven images for worship only represented the person being prayed to? So why can't they even get it right that the bread and wine are not the literal body and blood of Jesus in terms of substance?
What's worse is that the Council of Trent (who claims itself to be the final authority) also mentions the following which leads to utter idolatry and why so many were murdered by the Inquisition:
If anyone will say that the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not affered, anatehma [Let him be excommunicated or condemned!].
If anyone will say by the swords, 'Do this is in memory of Me." Christ did not constitute the Apostles Priests, let him be excommunicated.
If anyone will say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving; or that is was a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one [not obtaining forgiveness of sins in itself], and not to be offered for the living and for the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities let him be excommunicated.
If anyone will say that this is an imposture to celebrate Masses in honor of the saints [canonized saints] and its order to obtain their intercession with God as the Church intends, let him be excommunicated.
That alone sounds serious blasphemy to say that the Pope and the priests have the ability to grant forgiveness also by celebrating Mass. If they read through the Old Testament properly you'll realize that the job of the Jewish High Priest is different from the Pope. Entering into the Holy of Holies served as a reminder of God's presence. Today, the veil has been ripped so why are the Pope and his Pharisees still trying to stitch it back up? Also, hasn't Hebrews 10:12 been stated that the sacrifices are already done once and for all? It's been read to Roman Catholics yet why do they insist that the Mass is more than just an act of worship but it's an act of gaining forgiveness through the Eucharist?
It should be very contradictory to say that the Roman Catholic doctrine gets the doctrine of the Lord's supper right over Bible-believing Christians also for the reason of time. If you have the Roman Catholic Mass celebrated in the morning then it's the Lord's breakfast. If you have the Roman Catholic Mass celebrated at noon it's the Lord's lunch. If you have the Roman Catholic Mass celebrated in the afternoon it's the Lord's snacks. Only the Masses celebrated in the evening can truly be called the Lord's supper.
It's stupid to make fun of Bible-believing Christians to celebrate the Lord's supper during the evening for this reason: the Bible is clear as day that the Lord's supper was celebrated during the evening. The very event happened at the night Jesus was going to be betrayed. It's really funny that the priest quotes Scriptures about the Lord's supper mentioning the word "night" while the Mass is celebrated when it's not evening. The Lord's supper is supper. Supper means dinner. It was the night before Jesus was going to get betrayed. Jesus wasn't eating breakfast with the disciples. He was clearly eating dinner yet communion is served and will still be served in the morning, noon, and afternoon services. I guess it also has to do with the fact that the Sunday mass in the morning will be repeated in the afternoon. This is in contrast to the Bible-believing Christian services where the Sunday morning worship's message is different from the Sunday afternoon's message.
Should I mention the wine? What's the use of misquoting John 6:32-58 when the Roman Catholic Mass excludes the wine and only the priest drinks it? Didn't they say you need to drink the blood aside from eating the flesh? All Roman Catholics are doing in the Mass is to "eat the flesh" when they eat the bread but only the priest drinks the wine? That alone would even violate 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 which I'll quote from the Good News Version instead of the King James Version:
For I received from the Lord the teaching that I passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took a piece of bread, gave thanks to God, broke it, and said, "This is My body, which is for you. Do this in memory of Me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup and said, "This cup is God's new covenant, sealed with My blood. Whenever you drink it, do so in memory of Me." This means that every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. It follows that if one of you eats the Lord's bread or drinks from His cup in a way that dishonors Him, you are guilty of sin against the Lord's body and blood. So then, you should each examine yourself first, and then eat the bread and drink from the cup. For if you do not recognize the meaning of the Lord's body when you eat the bread and drink from the cup, you bring judgment on yourself as you eat and drink.
So they take 1 Corinthians 11:27 out of context by saying, "But look it says to eat the Lord's bread or drink the Lord's cup." But doesn't that contradict their previous statement that you should eat both the Lord's flesh and drink the Lord's blood? If transubstantiation were real then they have even condemned themselves further. So why are they only partaking in the flesh and not in the blood? The wine is only served during weddings done by a priest so what will the laity do to drink the blood if they are going to stay single but not enter into the priesthood or nunnery? That alone raises a dilemma as to why they aren't even drinking what they consider is the blood.
Not to mention, so many unrepentant churchgoers continue to receive communion during the conclusion of the Roman Catholic Mass
I could also mention how often the irony of religious Roman Catholics plays itself. It's common to hear many Roman Catholics make the accusation that the doctrine of eternal security is a license to sin. They confuse Antinomianism (which is common in some nominal Evangelical and Baptist circles where they teach that you can be saved but never changed) without knowing what the doctrine of eternal security really means. They say that they are still working on completing their salvation even if the same Catholic Bible says "work it out" instead of "work it on". They also fail to see that it's God at work and not them. Also working out one's salvation means that while salvation from sin is done yet it's not yet completed. It doesn't mean you'll lose your salvation but rather working out to complete one's salvation means to work it out not work on it.
How often have I ran into several Roman Catholics who actually present their very wicked lifestyles while maintaining an image of religiosity. You can have them sinning from Monday to Friday, goes to confession on Saturday, goes to Mass and Sunday then the process repeats itself. How often is it that the Roman Catholic confessional ends up as a license to sin. Anybody can memorize the Act of Contrition, say it to the priest and the priest says you pray X Our Fathers, Y Hail Marys and Z Glory Bes. Even if they are told to "go and sin no more" but the confessional tends to encourage its participants to "Go and sin some more." If all I have to do is go to the confessional to be forgiven then I could sin all I want. Instead, I approach a holy, righteous God not only for forgiveness but also for cleansing from unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).
Should I mention how often the Roman Catholic institution has had its selective outrage? It always goes against the death penalty only when it's convenient. After all, how many huge donations do Roman Catholic parishes get from big-time criminals such as corrupt politicians (though some of them appear clean and holy while stealing public funds in secret) and big-time drug dealers? If these people ever go to jail for life or get the death penalty the Roman Catholic institution loses more donations. How often is it that so many big-time criminals are still participating in the Lord's supper unworthily by living such crooked lives?
This goes to show that the sacraments are not meant to save anyone but they're for the saved. Good works are made for the saved not to be saved (Ephesians 2:8-10). What do you need in order to be baptized? Be a baby or be a repentant sinner? Acts 2:38-41 gives the commandment to repent and be baptized and that you first believe before you are baptized. Yet, Acts 2:38 is misused and misread to promote infant baptism as a way to salvation. The idea of salvation by infant baptism is in contrast to some Protestant Christian groups such as the Presbyterians that baptize infants as a form of dedication but the pastor who does the ceremony doesn't teach it as a necessity to "wash away sins". Besides, the Lord's supper has been given for the saved and not for the unsaved. It's never going to save anyone yet one's unwillingness to participate or take the Lord's supper seriously can be a very huge mark of being a false convert.
This goes to show that the sacraments are not meant to save anyone but they're for the saved. Good works are made for the saved not to be saved (Ephesians 2:8-10). What do you need in order to be baptized? Be a baby or be a repentant sinner? Acts 2:38-41 gives the commandment to repent and be baptized and that you first believe before you are baptized. Yet, Acts 2:38 is misused and misread to promote infant baptism as a way to salvation. The idea of salvation by infant baptism is in contrast to some Protestant Christian groups such as the Presbyterians that baptize infants as a form of dedication but the pastor who does the ceremony doesn't teach it as a necessity to "wash away sins". Besides, the Lord's supper has been given for the saved and not for the unsaved. It's never going to save anyone yet one's unwillingness to participate or take the Lord's supper seriously can be a very huge mark of being a false convert.
See also: