The Mass/Eucharist

By Dominic Rizzo

The Eucharist is Greek for Thanksgiving Transubstantiation. It is the term the Roman Catholic Church uses to describe the bread and wine of the Lords supper turning into His body and blood. As noted in part one, the concept of transubstantiation deifies the humanity of Christ, giving His body omnipresence. They are actually saying that the bread turns into the real body and blood of Jesus and the bread and wine no longer exist. Catholic apologist Karl Keating says, “That if bread was laced with arsenic, only the ingredients of bread would change, the arsenic would remain.” As Eric Svendsen points out in his excellent book Evangelical Answers, “What about the wine? The alcohol is part of the wine, yet if we drink enough Eucharist wine we will get drunk, just as Paul warned in 1 Cor. 11:20-26.” Jenny Richardson suffers from celiac disease, which causes her to get sick from eating wheat and other grains. She can safely eat rice. The Archdiocese of Boston has told the family that the church cannot substitute a rice communion wafer to replace the wheat wafer. If the bread really changed and was no longer bread then Jenny would have no problems. I wonder if you took this consecrated bread and wine to a lab for DNA analysis, would you have the DNA code for a human body?

Matthew 26:26-28

“While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Catholics say that Evangelicals are known for taking the scriptures literally, but are inconsistent for not taking Matt. 26 literally. Ok, let’s take this literally. Jesus called this drink “fruit of the vine” and that He will not drink of it until they are in His Father’s Kingdom. If this drink (fruit of the vine) is blood, then is He going to drink His own blood when He drinks with them in His Father’s kingdom? Will Jesus be transubstantiating wine into His blood? It is misleading to say that evangelicals take everything literally. Scripture must be taken in its plan ordinary sense and interpreted in context. Jesus said, “I am the door”, are we to take that literally? Does He have hinges, etc.? The Bible uses figures of speech, metaphors and symbolism. The door is symbolism saying that He is the way to God, you must come through Him. The vine is the part of the tree that nourishes the branches; Christians are the branches that are to be nourished by Christ the vine. In Matt 26:26 Jesus is saying, “this is my body”, yet, there is a lack of confusion which indicates that they understood the bread and wine to represent His body, and blood. A basic hermenutical tool (hermeneutic is that art and science of biblical interpretation) is to ask how would the original audience have understood Jesus’ words? Jesus was speaking to Jews. The law in Leviticus 3:17 forbids the drinking of blood. Jesus COULD NOT have intended this to be understood literally! Actually, this is one of the reasons why Augustine said that the bread and wine was figurative. Act 15:29 says to stay away from blood. It didn’t say to stay away from blood except for the communion meal. This was the Passover meal, which was full of symbolism. Each item on the table symbolized something that will remind them of their deliverance from Egypt. They had enjoyed many Passover meals. They knew that this was the time for reflection and joy. When Jesus broke the bread and said, “this is my body”, no one thought that He had changed bread into His body. Since His crucifixion had not taken place yet, it had to be symbolism. Throughout the Gospels Jesus was trying to prepare His disciples for His death. He was pointing to the fact that His body will be broken for us and His blood will be shed for us on the cross. Look at the scene. Jesus is sitting there holding up a piece of bread saying, “this is my body”. The disciples should be wondering if He tore a piece of skin off and turned it into bread. If not, then what part of His body was it? This is similar to the great flutist, James Galway, saying that his flute is an extension of his arm or soul. Are we to think that there is silver growing out of Galway’s arm? Or could it be a metaphor? If the disciples did take Him literally they would have questions, but there were no questions. Some say that Jesus wouldn’t risk being misunderstood by using non-literal language. Yet, on the very same night (in John 15) Jesus says that He is the vine. The fact that the Lord was willing to use symbolic language at John 15 means He had no problem with using symbolic language and the Passover was, and still is full of symbolic language.

John 6: 53, 54

“So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life.”

When we take these verses in context, beginning with verse 22 and ending with verse 64, we get the true meaning. John chapter 6 happened before the institution of the Eucharist, so they couldn't possible understand this to relate to His death, and the Passover meal. No one would have understood Jesus to be referring to the last super. The Last Supper didn't happen yet. In fact, at this point in time, they wouldn't have known that there was to be a Last Supper or communion meal. Since we have hindsight, we naturally assume that this chapter is referring to the same thing. Jesus is speaking to unbelievers (crowd/the multitude) in verse 22. Matthews 13: 34 says, “All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds (multitude) in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable.” Since He was speaking to the multitude it was in parable form. Continuing with the context; Jesus had just finished feeding the 5000 (John6: 5-14). Verse 28 says, “Therefore they said to Him, ‘What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.’” The context is to believe. When the people compare the miracle of the loaves to the manna in Moses' day, Jesus notices that they didn't get his comparison as the true bread, but rather as a free meal. So He says, “I am the bread of life, eat of me and you will never go hungry or thirst.” There is no reason to think that He is referring to a literal eating and drinking. There is no physical bread that can do this. If Jesus was speaking literally about His body, as the RCC claims, then He must have been speaking literally when He said in verse 35, “I am the bread of life; he that comes to me shall never hunger and he that believes on me shall never thirst.” The RCC claims that the Eucharist is the real body of Christ at their communion services, they are literally eating the body of Christ. If Jesus is speaking literally then the Catholics who take the wafer should never be hungry or thirsty. But rather, Jesus is saying that those who believe in Him or take Him in have no need to be hungry or thirsty for spiritual things. Do you see his comparison by using hunger and thirst in a non-physical way? Remember, He just fed 5,000 people, He is using that to point to His offer of spiritual sustenance, if you will believe and take Him in you will never hunger or thirst. There is nothing in the scriptures about physically eating him. There are many metaphors in scripture, using common activities, such as eating, to describe a spiritual truth. Psalm 34:8 says, “Taste and see that the Lord is good.”

They then “ask, what work can they do to do the work of God”. Jesus' answer is “to believe in Him”. In verse 35 He says, “he who comes to me shall not hunger and he who believes in me shall not thirst”. Jesus is saying that coming to Him and believing in Him will quench hunger and thirst. So which is it - eating Him or coming to Him? A plain reading of the following verses shows the context is still believing and salvation. Starting at verse 36, “But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” Verse 47 reads, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” In verses 48-50, He compares being the bread of life, which gives eternal life and the manna from heaven, which only gave physical sustenance. He is using bread as an example. In fact, Jesus used the analogy of bread only because it was what the crowd was interested in at the moment. If you go to John 4:10-15 Jesus uses another metaphor for eternal life - living water. Jesus is applying the same teaching tool. In John 6, the crowd had an interest in bread. In John 4 the woman at the well had an interest in water. In both cases, the metaphor was to be used for consumption. So, if you read just verses 53 and 54 you are forced to take this out of context. Are we to drink living water for eternal life? The picture He is painting is of belief and eternal life. In verse 60 we have the disciples finding these statements very difficult in verse 63 Jesus says “it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the word that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. Jesus is pointing out that He is talking in a spiritual context. This is why, when they get to the Last Supper they have no problem with the symbolism.

Compare Verse 40 With 54

Verse 40 “for this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life,”

Verse 54 “He who eats my flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life.”

Verse 40 “And I myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Verse 54 “ I will raise him up on the last day”.

It is obvious that verse 40 talks about believing and verse 54 talks about eating, but they both end with the same results. In this chapter eating and believing are synonymous

Some More Problems

1. The RCC says that the bread and wine turn into the real Christ, this is a miracle. But when Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding feast in John chapter two, it looked like wine and tasted like wine, in fact, the headwaiter said this was the best wine. Yet, the Eucharist doesn’t look like the body of Christ, but looks and tastes like it never changed. The wedding guests are fortunate that the miracle that Jesus preformed was not like the miracle that happens when the RC priest consecrates the bread! If so, the headwaiter would have to say “this tastes and looks like water but who am I to question? I’ll give it to the guests and hope they don’t get drunk on it. This reminds me of the story about the Emperor’s new clothes! There is no reason for the bread to change, Christ’s death on the cross almost 2,000 years ago was totally sufficient to redeem sinners. The sad part is that Catholics are lead to believe that they have eternal life by trusting in the dogmas of the church rather than the Bible. In this why they will never realize that they are without the real Christ in their heart.

2. If John 6 is a reference to the Eucharist, then anyone who does not take it does not have eternal life. Then all non-Catholics cannot have eternal life, but the Catholic Catechism says that all Protestants are separated brothers. But of course if you go to the council of Trent you will find that these separated brothers are cursed.

3. In Acts 16:39,31, the jailer said, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” No mention of the Mass or any other sacraments.

4. When John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. It opposes hundreds of scriptures that declare that to repent and believe on Jesus is what is needed for salvation. The Last Supper is a memorial, “do this in remembrance of me”. You only memorialize someone who is not there, He is not physically present in the Eucharist.

5. The celebration of the Mass is a chief duty of the RC priest, yet the New Testament gives no instructions on how to offer the Mass. God gave plenty of instruction to the priest of the Old Testament. Christ sent the apostles to teach and baptize not to say Mass (Matthews 28:19). This form of priestly function is over. In fact we live in what is called the priesthood of all believers. In 1Peter 2:9 this is what he says about regular Christians, ”But you are a chosen race, A royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the Excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light”.

6. Search the New Testament, you will find many admonitions for prayer, praise, preaching the Word, but noting about the Mass!

7. Transubstantiation (turning the bread into the body and wine into the blood of Christ) wasn’t an official dogma until the year 1215. This should be a big problem, all those years, and no one gave honor and worship to the host as they do today. It’s hard to believe that God took so long to tell the Vicar of Christ (the Pope) the reality of the Eucharist!

8. Catholic priest continually violate Christ’s unique role as the mediator of His Church (1Tim2:5). According to the RCC you can only be forgiven if you go through a Catholic priest. Jesus has made a way to go directly to God through Him. THAT IS GOOD NEWS!

After reading the Catholic Catechism, Councils of Trent and many articles written by Catholic leaders, it is obvious that they have a different Jesus and Gospel. If a small group of people believed what is found in these books, we would have no problem calling this group a cult, but because the RCC has a billion people, the word cult is hard to fathom. Below are some things that are common with cults like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons etc. How many of these do you think fit the description of the Roman Catholic Church?

1. Does it have practices or doctrines that are not found in the Bible?

2. Does it discourage or forbid its members to read other religious literature?

3. Does it claim divine authority to interpret the Bible for you?

4. Does it teach that its own traditions are of equal value with the Bible?

5. Does it tell you the Bible is dangerous to read for yourself?

6. Are any of its doctrines contradicted by the Bible?

7. Does it say that the Bible doesn’t have all the truth, that there are other inspired sources?

8. Does it teach that all other Christian groups are false?

9. Is dissent discouraged, penalized, or punished?

10. Does it have a totalitarian or dictatorial structure?

11. Is fear a primary motivating factor in its teaching?

12. Does it teach that there is no salvation outside itself?

13. Does it play down the sacrifice of Christ and add to His work?

14. Does it offer something other than, or in addition to, Jesus Christ as our Savior?

15. Is attendance mandatory, with the threat of damnation as the price of failure?

16. Does it claim that its leaders are infallible?

17. Does it teach that sin can only be forgiven by their own representatives?

As you can see from these articles the RCC has a different Jesus and a different gospel. The Jesus of the RCC does not exist! The RC Priests do not have any power over Him. We have only touched upon one aspect of their many false teachings. Doesn’t it make more sense to trust in the risen, living Savior and Lord than in the beliefs of men?

Jesus said, “It is paid in full.”

Jesus doesn’t lie.
Please trust in Him today.

The author would like to acknowledge the following men for their work, and expertise in apologetics and their study of Catholicism: DR. Robert Morey, DR. Ron Rhodes, Eric Svendsen, Loraine Boettner, Robert. Zins, Dave Hunt, Richard Bennett, James White, John MacArthur, William Webster, R.C. Sproul, Mike Gendron, and Timothy F. Kauffman.

You are free to re-print all or portions of this article without alteration. For further copyright information please contact leastofhis@juno.com.

New-Light Ministries
www.new-light.org

Return to Home Page

Updated February 15, 2002