The Roman Catholic Mass

The doctrine of the Mass is central to the teaching and practice of the Church of Rome. We should understand that the Mass is not simply the Roman Catholic ‘version’ of the Lord’s Supper. Some Protestants have the idea that attendance at a Mass is not really any different to attending a communion service—it’s just done a little differently. Put simply, …the sacrifices 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. [Article XXXI of the Church of England—Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross] The Mass is an act of blasphemous idolatry and cannot be countenanced as Christian by any who professes to believe the Scriptures.

Historical development.

The Mass was first proposed by a Benedictine monk named Radbertus in the ninth century. It became an official part of Roman Catholic theology in 1215 at a Lateran Council presided over by Pope Innocent III. This doctrine was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563). Central to the Mass is the idea of transubstantiation—the complete change of the elements used in the Mass (the bread and wine) into the body of Christ. Teaching on this change of substance received its first creedal mention in the creed of Pope Pius IV in 1564. Another significant development occurred on June 15th, 1415 at the Council of Constance when it was decided to prohibit the people participating in the communion cup. Following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Mass was permitted to be said in the language of the people. Until then it had to be performed in Latin.

All this indicates that the Mass as its is practiced today by the Church of Rome was something entirely unknown to the church for more than 1000 years.

Rome’s teaching on the Mass.

1. It is a sacrifice. The following extracts from official Roman Catholic teaching make it very clear what the Mass is.

  • Catechism, #1330 The Mass is called The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church’s offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, “sacrifice of praise,” spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.
  • Catechism, #1350 The presentation of the offerings (the Offertory). Then, sometimes in procession, the bread and wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood. It is the very action of Christ at the Last Supper – “taking the bread and a cup.” “The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, when she offers what comes forth from his creation with thanksgiving.” The presentation of the offerings at the altar takes up the gesture of Melchizedek and commits the Creator’s gifts into the hands of Christ who, in his sacrifice, brings to perfection all human attempts to offer sacrifices.
  • Catechism #1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since 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 is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory” .
  • Catechism #1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
  • The Creed of Pope Pius IV (1564), which is a basic statement of Catholic teaching professed by every good Roman Catholic, states: I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead… In effect Rome teaches that the Mass is a re-crucifying of Christ.
  • The Canons of the Council of Trent in relation to the Mass pronounce an anathema—the curse of God—upon anyone who denies that the Mass is a sacrifice of Christ! “If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.” “If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is…not a propitiatory sacrifice…let him be anathema.” Canons 1&3 On the Sacrifice of the Mass

The ‘sacrifice’ of the Mass is one in which even the faithful can place no real confidence. The efficacy of this sacrifice depends upon the intention of the Priest offering it. If his intention is not right then the sacrifice is invalid. Of course there is no way to know whether this is the case or not!

2. It is founded upon the doctrine of transubstantiation. Without transubstantiation the concept of a sacrifice is lost to the Mass. Rome teaches that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ which is then offered by the Priest who is acting as Christ. The ‘power’ to make this change is given to the Priest at his ordination. As the Priest consecrates the bread and wine it is changed into the complete body and deity of Christ. From this point on in the Mass the wafer is called ‘the host’ and is worshipped as God by the people.


  • Worshipping the wafer. [Catechism #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. [Pope Paul VI said] “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.”
  • The real presence of Christ. [Catechism #1374] The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ – by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”
  • 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.” [Catechism #1376]
  • The priest’s power over Christ. “With regard to the power of the priests over the real body of Christ, it is of faith [i.e., part of what faith embraces] that when they pronounce the words of consecration, the incarnate God has obliged Himself to obey and come into their hands under the sacramental appearance of bread and wine. We are struck with wonder when we find that in obedience to the words of His priests—Hoc est corpus meum (This is my body)—God Himself descends on the altar, that He comes whenever they call Him, and as often as they call Him, and places Himself in their hands, even though they should be His enemies. And after having come He remains entirely at their disposal and they move Him as they please from one place to another. They may, if they wish, shut Him up in the tabernacle, or expose Him on the altar, or carry Him out­side the church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give Him for the food of others. Besides, the power of the priest surpasses that of the Blessed Virgin because she can­not absolve a Catholic from even the smallest sin” (Part III, The Dignity and Duties of the Priest, Ligouri).

The Church of Rome arrives at this position by taking the language of Scripture literally when it was clearly intended to be metaphorical. Matthew 26:26-28—And as they were eating, 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 6:53-56—Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh 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. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.


Biblical objections to the Mass.

1. Christ offered a single, once-for-all sacrifice on the cross. It is not repeated nor continued. Cp Romans 6:9, Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12, 22-29, Hebrews 10:12-14.

2. The body and blood of Christ are simply symbolized in communion. The Lord’s supper is a sacrament not a sacrifice. A sacrament is a natural symbol of spiritual truth. The bread and wine do not change in substance. What the disciples drank was the fruit of the vine Matthew 26:29—n.b. this was after the Saviour had referred to it as my blood. The Apostle Paul emphasizes the fact that the communion service is a memorial not a sacrifice—engaged in by the Church in remembrance of me 1 Corinthians 11:24. The observation of this memorial is said to shew forth (or, proclaim) Christ’s death, 1 Corinthians 11:26 not re-enact it. The language of Scripture which speaks of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood is metaphorical.

3. A bloodless sacrifice is no sacrifice at all! Hebrews 9:22—And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

4. Consumption of blood by Christ and His disciples would have been in direct breach of the commands of God. Leviticus 17:10 states: And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. Add to this the monstrous idea of Christ and His disciples eating His own flesh in a sort of cannibalistic fashion and the doctrines of the Mass and transubstantiation are abhorrent indeed!

5. The worship of the consecrated host is blatant idolatry. The second commandment forbids this in forthright terms. Roman Catholicism teaches and practices that the consecrated wafer is to be worshipped as God.



No-one who knows the gospel of Christ as revealed in Scripture and also knows what the Roman Catholic Mass is, can countenance the blasphemous claims of the Church of Rome.

Only ignorance of one or the other could permit a professing Christian to attend such an abomination. The professing Christian, who faced with the truth about the Mass, persists in attending it, calls into serious question the reality of their profession of faith.

That professing Christians are again in this day showing alarming tendencies to attend the Mass and justify such attendance, only demonstrates the ignorance that is descending upon the Church of Christ and the unconscionable failure of preachers whose calling it is to expound the true nature of the gospel and warn faithfully against all error.



Canons of the Council of Trent on the sacrifice of the Mass

The dogma of the Council of Trent is still the bedrock of Roman Catholic Teaching. The following canons concisely state the fundamental beliefs of the Church of Rome about the Mass.


If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.


If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.


If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.


If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.


If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.


If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.


If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.


If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.


If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

15 Replies to “The Roman Catholic Mass”

  1. You wrote: Historical development.
    “The Mass was first proposed by a Benedictine monk named Radbertus in the ninth century.”

    Your initial statement regarding the Catholic Mass is not accurate as that which is today called the Mass was instituted by Jesus Christ on the night he was betrayed at the Last Supper. We find the Mass in the Book of Acts the where the Mass was originally referred to as the Breaking of the Bread.
    Scripture is the written Word, while the Eucharist is the Word in the Flesh. Paul’s first Letter, aka the first Book of the New Testament, was not written until 20 years after the Ascension of Christ and was written to the Church.
    Christ founded the Church and instituted the Scared Eucharist, subsequently that Church canonized the written Word which we now call the Bible. Therefore, the Church pre-existed the Bible.
    When you mis-represent the Mass you mis-represent the Church and it follows that to do so mis-represents the written Word of God.

  2. The Roman Catholic Mass is emphatically NOT the ordinance that Christ instituted at the last supper with His disciples. I did not misrepresent the Mass at all! I merely quoted the teachings of the Church of Rome and indicated how Roman Catholic doctrine is at variance with the words of Christ in the inspired Scriptures. The inspired writings of the apostles on this subject are the authority we must bow to – not the teachings of the Roman Church which sets itself above the authority of God’s written word. Can I invite you to visit this website for more information?

  3. I am specifically addressing that you wrote the following: “Historical development.
    The Mass was first proposed by a Benedictine monk named Radbertus in the ninth century.” Now, to your statement I repeat that it is not accurate, that is to say, it is false to write that Radbertus “proposed” the Mass.

    The Church has offered the Holy Scarifice of the Mas since the time of the Apostles. The correct understanding is that as Abbot of the Corbie, a monastery located in Northern France, Radbertus wrote a treatis on the subject of the Eucharist, along with writing other treatises on other subjects.

    FYI, in the Book of Acts we find the Apostles continued to go the Temple to pray while the Brealking of the Bread, that is to say, the Eucharistic Celebration (aka Mass) was held in a home and apart from the Temple. So, what today is called the Mass, or the Eucharistic Celebration has been ongoing since the time of the Apostles.

    Your statement regarding Radbertus gave the impression that he was “proposing” the Mass for the first time,which of course is not a true statement since the Mass has been ongoing. Since it is the case that you wrote about Radbertus I would expect you to defend that which you have written, rather than directing me to a different web site. It stands to reason that if you are going to write it you should defend it.

  4. I am relying on the historical information supplied in the History of the Christian Church by Phillip Schaff (see here).
    Your comments about the very minor issue as to the historical development of the Mass do not in way distract from the central issue of its complete unscriptural character.

  5. Through the use of the Written Word, that is to say, Scripture I have refuted your basic premise that the Mass was first “proposed by Radbertus.” In doing so, and by revealing your fundemantal error in reasoning, I have proved that the balance of what you have written on the Mass is also a distortion. In other words, there is no need to address point by point your attack on the Mass and the Catholic Church seriously because you failed to proved your initial premise.

    You, on the other hand, rather than relying on the the Written Word based your basic premise on the writtings of Phillip Schaff. Now Radbertus lived in the 9th century while Schaff lived around 1000 years later in the 19th century; nevertheless Schaff begins his so-called historical work by writing the Radbertus was a superstitious man. Schaff provides no proof of his position, he simply makes the
    claim. Therefore, it follows that Schaff’s comments on Radbertus are not worthy of belief. In other words Schaff is simply not creditable.

    So your premise is in error and Schaff, who is the source of your premise is neither creditable or objective. This is hardly, as you have called it, a “minor issue.”

    Schaff writes: “Paschasius Radbertus (from 800 to about 865), a learned, devout and superstitious monk, and …. ”

    If you are going to make claims based upon a premise, you need to prove your premise. You have failed to do so, rather than using the Written Word of Scripture you attempted to substitue Schaff’s history. Any guess on how Schaff may have concluded that Radbertus was a so-called “superstitious man”?

    I can address the objections you have with the Mass and the Catholic Church and am willing to do so if you submit them one at a time rather than as a litany.

    “My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink, unless you eat my body and drink My blood you shall not have life within you.” Jesus Christ (Jn6)
    Blessings, Bill Bradley

  6. My basic premise is that the Roman Mass is entirely unbiblical. It is a perversion of the clear sense of the text of Scripture. The Saviour instituted a symbolic remembrance of His death – not the obscene blasphemy that Popery teaches that we are eating the blood, body, bones, sinews and divinity of Christ, and thereby re-offering the sacrifice of Christ which Scripture makes clear was a once-for-all atonement. The little matter you raise about Radbertus is trifling by comparison and certainly has no effect on the main argument in the article.

  7. Your inital premise was the Mass was first “proposed” by Radbertus in the ninth century. It is without question that you wrote such a statement in order to lead one to think that Jesus did not institute the Eucharistic Sacrifice at the Last Supper.
    Nevertheless, let us set that aside so I can move on to address the Mass as a sacrifice, and the real Body and Blood of our Divine Savior. As I have previously written, the Euchristic Sacrifice, aka the Mass, was first called the Breaking of the Bread and you will find that reference in the Book of Acts.

    As it is written, one is “saved by grace through faith,” and as it is also written, Christ died “once for all.” That is to say, Christ died one time for all people; the people that lived in the past, the people that live in the present, and the people that will live in the future; ALL PEOPLE. The sacrifice of Calvary is not limited in time or by time. The sacrifice of Calvary transcends both time and place and the grace of salvation by which one is saved is communicated to people of the past, the present and the future by its re-presentation in the Sacrifice of the Mass.

    Christ instituted the means of communicating this salvific grace at the last Supper when he instituted the Holy Eucharist. In instituting the Eucharist Christ declared that the bread is his real Body and the wine is his real Blood. Christ established the New Covenant in his Blood. The salvific grace of salvation is communicated in his Body and Blood in the Eucharist that is made peresent in time and place through the Consecration of the bread and wine performed by a duly ordained priest during what is now called in the Mass.

    Read Jn6 and you will fined Jesus declaring that his “Flesh is real food” and his Blood is “real drink”. Furthermore, Christ declared that “unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood you shall not have life within you.” The life Christ is referring to is the Divine Life of Sanctifying Grace by which one is saved. Now Scripture records that some began to mumble and say “this saying is too hard.” In other words, they understood what Christ meant and found it too hard to accept. So they proceeded to walk away. Notice that Jesus did not stop them as they walked away to explain that it really wasn’t his Body and Blood.

    No, Christ allowed them to walk away. The audience understood what Christ meant and refused to accept it. Then Christ turned to the Apostles and asked “will you leave me also”? At no time did Christ change what he said, he had announced that he is “the Bread that has come down from heaven” and, “unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood you shall not have eternal life.”

    Christ is very clear on this point and by faith I accept that which he has declared. As a result I have attended Mass each day for the past 20 1/2 years.

    Is it your position that Christ could not, or would not, change the bread and wine into his Body and Blood in order to leave us a memorial of his sacrifice to be made present in time and place?

  8. It is absolutely my position that the Lord Jesus did NOT institute the Roman Catholic Mass. He instituted a simple act of remembrance in which he ordained the use of visible symbols (bread & wine) to represent His body. These symbols represented His sacrifice of Himself in exactly the same way the Old Testament passover and other sacrifices had picture Him and His atoning work. The RCC redefines the English term represent to mean a re-presenting of the sacrifice which is utterly ludicrous linguistically and doctrinally. As Paul wrote citing the words of the Saviour: “This do in remembrance of me.” The Lord’s supper is a commemoration, a tangible reminder only of what Christ did in His death. Because they insisted on this biblical distinction, the Roman Catholic Church burned hundreds of Protestant martyrs at the stake in England, Scotland and elsewhere.

    IF what you say is true then the Lord Jesus ate his own flesh and drank his own blood! Such a thing is utterly foreign to reason and to the mind of the law-abiding Jew. Peter said that he had never eaten anything unclean – so he could not have drunk blood as the Church of Rome insists!

    However, the Bible is very clear that after consecration the elements of the act of remembrance are still bread and still the fruit of the vine – “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matt 26:29 AV) It was still only the fruit of the vine after the observance of the sacred ritual.

    The Lord Jesus in John 6 was using language that every Jew could understand based on the Levitical revelation of the sacrifice. It is clear that he is speaking metaphorically of the actions of faith. In the OT ritual, eating the sin offering (for example) pictured a believing embrace of Christ, so He is insisting upon the need to accept by faith His sacrifice of Himself.

    You are entirely wrong in your hope of obtaining saving grace by means of the sacrament of the Mass. No sacrament can communicate saving grace. It is only by a God-given faith that rests in the once-for-all, never-to-be-repeated sacrifice of Christ on the cross that guilty sinners are justified before God. We are not justified by works, nor by faith in combination with works, but by faith alone in Christ alone. “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;” (Heb 10:11-12 AV) The “unbloody sacrifice” of the Mass is completely useless because God has said that without the shedding of blood there is no remission/pardon (Hebrews 9:22).

    One question in closing. If the Mass is a real sacrifice for sin why do you need to have a sacrifice offered for your sins every day for 20 1/2 years? If you only had the eyes to see it, there is the greatest evidence of the utter worthlessness of the Roman Mass – it cannot take away sin and is repeated continuously as a witness to its complete ineffectiveness.

  9. You have expressed the Protestant understanding of communion and have done so correctly, that is to say, within Protestantism communion is simply a symbol. There is not a validly Ordained Priesthood in Protestantism so the miracle of Transubstantiation cannot occur as Transubstantiation requires a validly Ordained Priest to effect it through the power of the Holy Spirit.

    The valid Priesthood resides only within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and the belief concerning the Real Presence is the same, that is to say, that there is a reality behind the appearance of the bread and wine and that reality is Jesus Christ truly present in the Eucharist. After the Consecration by the Priest the appearance remains bread and wine but the substance becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. Another way to understand Transubstantiation is to consider that the Body and Blood is veiled by the appearance of bread and wine.

    You have acted in like manner as the crowd in Jn6 who understood what Jesus was saying but refused to accept it and chose to walk away. Because of the faculty of free will you can choose to walk away, the Lord will not impose a belief in his Real Presence. Nevertheless, in Jn6 Jesus did say “unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood you shall not have eternal life, that is to say, the Divine Life of Sanctifying Grace that is communicated in the Euchsrist.

    Regarding you statement that one is saved, as you say, “by faith ALONE”; that is simply not the Apostolic Teaching of the Church and neither is it Biblical. I refer you to the words of St. Paul who wrote that we are “saved by grace through faith”, and also wrote that one is to “work out your salvation in fear and trembling.” In the Letter of St. James we find that “faith without works is dead,” Martin Luther really disliked the Letter of James and tried to remove it from the New Testament Canon.

    Finally, as a Catholic I seek Union with Christ, and the means for that Union is Communion. Communion is Com-union which translates to With-union. Within Protestantism we hear a lot about “relationship” but little about Union. Christ is fully human and fully Divine and Christ is One Person. So in Christ there is the Union of his human nature and his Divine nature, otherwise called the Hypostatic Union of the two natures.

    We are called to a similar Union, where our human nature is united to Christ by Divine Grace and, as it is written in the Scriptures, we are divinized. So in answer to your question “why do you need to have a sacrifice offered for your sins every day for 20 1/2 years?”, the correct understanding is as follows. At Mass I am able to unite myself with the Body and Blood of Christ who is truly and Substantially present in the Holy Eucharist; and in doing so, I am able to offer my prayers, works, joys and sufferings united to those of Christ in order to, as Paul has written, “make up for what is lacking in the Body of Christ.”

    Here Paul is referring to the Church. So you see it is much more than relatiobship, rather it has to do with Unity. In and through the Eucharist, Christ has left the Church the means to participate in the salvation of souls. In 1 Corinthians 10:16, St Paul teaches the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Paul states that “the cup of blessing is the participation in the Blood of Christ and the bread we break is the participation in the Body of Christ”.

    This is my last response, if you are seeking Truth you will be led to understand that which I have written.

  10. Sorry for the delay in posting your comment.
    The validity of the Roman Catholic Mass is derived, in your estimation, from the validity of the Roman catholic Priesthood. Yet it is precisely at this point that the Roman Catholic system of worship falls apart. There is no BIBLICAL validity for its sacrificing priesthood. There was only one God-ordained priesthood in the Old Testament period – the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood. That was set aside entirely by Christ as the great High Priest of His people, whose ministry was typified by the Old Testament priesthood/sacrifices etc. The Apostle goes to great lengths to establish this in the epistle to the Hebrews for example. NO other person than a legitimately appointed member of Aaron’s household had any right whatever to act as a priest! You can read of the attempt by Korah to alter this proviso in Numbers 16 and the fatal consequences of attempting this.

    The Levitical Priesthood has been set aside and with it any need for a human, sacrificing priesthood. The Christian acts as their own priest in a spiritual capacity, with no warrant to offer sacrifices for sins. On both these counts the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to a valid priesthood is null, void and blasphemous. There is not a shred of support in Scripture for the Roman Catholic order of sacrificing priests. That being so their ‘sacrifices’ are vain, abominable acts of idolatry.

  11. William Bradley is to be commended for his spirited defence of the Roman Catholic Church. Dr. Scott Hahn was a Protestant fundamentalist who attacked Holy Mother Church as his full-time occupation. After many years of this he decided to attend a Mass so that he could biblically tear it apart. Strangely, he felt drawn to return again and again, gradually realising that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the true making present again of Christ’s death on the cross. So, at the consecration, the celebrant, who must be a validly ordained Priest in order to act “in Persona Christi”, uses the words of institution and invokes the Holy Spirit, thereby changing the bread and wine into the actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is Christ who offers Himself to the Father. The congregation is kneeling at the foot of the cross.
    Those not in mortal sin may receive the Body and Blood of Christ under the sacramental veil. There is no magic involved. That is a grave Protestant misunderstanding. For the sacrament of the Eucharist to be efficacious, the recipient must be properly disposed. Simply being without mortal sin is not enough. A person must desire to become more Christ-like.
    Dr. Hahn is now, as a committed Roman Catholic, a leading figure in the fight against the errors inherent in Protestantism in its many guises. His best selling book, “The Mass; Where Heaven meets Earth” is a must read for Catholics who wish to learn more about the Mass, and for those outside the fold who are seeking the truth.

  12. Dr. Scott Hahn may have changed his views but the Bible has not changed an iota in its condemnation of Roman Catholic dogma. In the final analysis it will not be how many converts Rome makes but the infallible, inerrant teaching of Scripture that will be proved to be true. Those who like Dr. Hahn convert to Rome make it more difficult perhaps for God’s faithful people to continue to stand against Rome’s error, but such an event cannot destroy the witness of the Bible.
    It is to be noted that Dr. Hahn was a minister in the PCUSA – a ‘protestant’ denomination that has again just recently by its decision regarding same-sex relationships, proved that it is rife with unbiblical error. It is therefore not that significant that such a man should transfer from such a church to Rome. The difference was only in the degree of apostasy present in each organization!

  13. Great job in defending our Catholic faith William. As for those who knock the Church may they
    remember that our Catholic Church gave the Christian world the Scriptures. They would not
    even know Christ without the gift our church gave the world. I will pray for all our brothers in
    Christ that God grants them peace and understanding.

  14. Any attempt to defend the doctrines of Rome must be carried on without Biblical support. The doctrines of the Mass and may other of the fundamentals of Roman Catholicism are without a shred of Biblical support. It is breathtaking to read this comment that Rome gave the world the Bible! Throughout her entire existence she has attacked and opposed the Scriptures. She anathematized the translation of it into the language of the ordinary people; buried it under mountains of falsehood dressed up as ‘tradition’; hounded and murdered men like William Tyndale who gave their lives to spreading the knowledge of God’s word. Jack, pray for yourself that God will give you light to see past the errors of Rome to the truth of His word.

  15. The only ritual Christ commanded to the early church was the ritual of the Lords Supper and Baptism. Worship was to be in Spirit and in Truth. The once and for all Sacrifice of Christ cannot be repeated either totally or partially because the logic of the Gospel tells us so. If the sacrifice of Christ cannot be repeated, then it follows that the office of the priesthood ends as well. When the Veil of the temple was torn into two, it indicated a new era. The people of God has complete access without any human go between (priest) because Christ our high priest is our go between God and man and is seated at the right hand of God to make intercession on our behalf. The Roman Catholic worship is an amalgamation of the Old testament sacrificial system using Christ instead of bull and Goats etc. And has to be repeated again and again and again. The Protestant form of worship is celebratory to the finished work of Christ on the cross. The difference is 180 degrees of opposite direction. The meaning of the Mass has been defined at least 3 time in Roman Catholic history. First, during its inception without qualification, it was just practiced the way it was introduced. nobody objected because the people where illiterate then. They accepted the ritual at face value. Nobody could read and was allowed to ready the Bible (close book). Then during the reformation when the Bible was opened, the error of the Mass was exposed and so the Roman Catholic church was compelled to redefine the Mass at the Council of Trent as quoted by the author of this blog. The third time the Mass was defined again was at Vatican II. If you read closely the explanation of the Mass and its meaning in all 3 episodes, you will notice that the errors were never taken away on the second and third but the issues of the Protestants were acknowledge and agreed (a very simple way of taking the fangs of the opposing debater by agreeing) but continued to maintain its basic and fundamental definition. If you google those websites that defend the Mass, they explain in the most elaborate way the Protestant position, quoting verses and using Protestant language and theological thoughts regarding the once and for all finished work of Christ only to go back to the idea of “true sacrifice”, “propitiatory sacrifice” etc. And it seem they are having great difficulty explaining it because it really is difficult to defend in light of Scriptures. I encourage both Catholic and Protestants in all denominations to again revisit the Gospel of Christ and understand as much as you can the logic of the Gospel. Understand why it is call the Good News, and how does this applies to us in need of it and you would be surprise how you can easily detect truth from error. Both Roman Catholic and Protestants must realize that at the end of the day, when we are face to face with God at the judgement, He will not asked us if we are Catholic, Protestant or any other as a ticket to enter heaven. He will judge us on the basis of how we have applied the finished work of His Son to our lives. I would like to encourage the author of this blog for your thoughts and i am in agreement with you. “Not everyone who says unto Me Lord will enter the Kingdom of God”. Peace and Grace.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *