The Spiritual Tyranny of the Mass: A Point-by-Point Approbation on the Reformed View of the Sacrament of 'Holy Communion' Concerning the Scriptural, Theological, Doctrinal and Historical Sermon on the Reformed Baptist Understanding of the 'Spiritual Eucharist' in Remembrance of the Once-And-For-All Atonement of the Incarnate Lamb in Rejection of the Roman Mass of 'Transubstantiation'

1. There is no such thing as a "hermeneutic of humility" in the furtherance of the approbation of the material presence of Christ.  The Bible does not teach the "material presence of Christ" or known as "the real presence of Christ."
2. It takes greater faith to believe in the life and death of Christ alone for how someone is right with God than the Roman Mass.
3. It is harder to follow the Bible's view of the narrow way of the Eucharist than the board way of the Roman Mass.
4. It is better to believe in the once-and-for-all atonement of Jesus Christ than to believe the work of human hands in the Mass.
5. There is no one who was ever purified by the Roman Mass because with the approval of one mortal sin the sinner is outside of Christ and His divine grace.
6. There can be no representation of the Cross but only a symbolic remembrance of Jesus Christ, His person and work.
7. No one ever went to heaven because of the Roman Mass.
8. Several of the early fathers viewed the Eucharist in figurative or symbolic terms (the historical evidence is provided below).
9. There was no unanimous content of the early fathers about the Roman Mass (such is a grave lie to misled Christian people).
10. There were grave superstitions lies about the Roman Mass that led to its modern development.
11. We are never commanded to worship the Eucharist because it merely signifies the atonement of Jesus Christ.
12. Why is the Mass so important when it is not even all-sufficient?
13. Why is the Mass so essential when there are many things the Roman Church adds on like forgiveness through indulgences?
14. How can the Mass take away human sin when it is the work of man's hands?  Why isn't the God-man's Cross enough?  How dare the Church of Rome say that the most bitter passion of Christ is not enough to forgive sins!
15. The Roman Mass cannot be true peace for there is a peace that is not a peace but Jesus Himself brings His true peace that is not of this world.
16. The Roman Mass cannot bring true comfort for there is a comfort that is not a true comfort but the Holy Spirit brings true comfort devoid of the work of man's hands.
17. The Roman priest is not another Christ as she teaches.
18. The Roman priest does not have the supernatural or spiritual ability to change the bread and wine into Jesus' body and blood.
19. It is more possible through the Roman doctrine of intent that none of the leadership of Rome is spiritually authentic.
20. It is extremely possible that all the Roman Masses are lies and extreme doubt of their allegiance to God alone.
21. The Roman Mass cannot take away the cosmic sin of the bisexual terrorism and evil living of the Papists.
22. The Roman Mass is not a true sacrament of the divine Word.
23. If the Roman Mass is not a valid sacrament, the Roman Church is not a true church.
24. Rome adds the Eucharist to the glorious gospel, but the gospel is not the work of human hands.  Rather it is a regenerated faith alone in the life and death of Christ alone.
25. The Eucharist should not be brought to individual houses to take part in it, because it is meant under the rulership of the subordinate authority of a ruling eldership in the revealed Word.
26. The Eucharist should always be with the Word preached, and the Word preached always with the celebration of the Eucharist.
27. The Eucharist does not possess the supernatural power to pardon sin.
28. The Bible-based Eucharist is not like another "regular meal" of a Christian.  Many converts to Rome have said this of the Reformed Eucharist.  It is simply not true.  Rather the Bible-grounded Eucharist is spiritually "sacred" and "holy" because of the divine revelation of Scripture.
29. The Word preached sanctifies the Eucharist further in the proclamation of the Spirit-exalted Word.
30. The OT knows nothing of the coming of the Roman Mass.
31. It is possible for God to superintend healing through the Bible-based Eucharist through meditation on the Incarnate Creator's Cross.
32. The only true mystery that I can think of is how deity died on the Cross; besides this I know of no other profounder mystery.
33. It is acceptable to kneel at Holy Communion but not to the Eucharist.  Rather to the glorified Christ in heaven at the Father's right hand.
34. It was the Father's will to institute the Holy Eucharist.
35. The Spirit works in our hearts at Holy Communion to remember the all-appeasing atonement of Jesus Christ for His little flock.
36. The literal, ancient and historical Cross of Christ has no equal in the incomprehensible pardoning-power of Christ.
37. To say there is a work of man's hands that equals the Cross is contrary to the clear testimony of the Word of God.
38. The divine Word teaches us to share holy communion (1 Cor. 10:16).
39. The written Scriptures refer to the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42-46).
40. The Bible calls the Eucharist the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:20).
41. The Eucharist in the divine Word is a Sacrament of thanksgiving (Lk 22:17-19).
42. The Eucharist was instituted by the only God-man (Mt 26:26-29).
43. The Eucharist was commemorative of the death of our Savior and Creator Jesus Christ (Lk 22:19-20).
44. The Eucharist is a Sacrament of introduction to the New Covenant (Mt 26:28).
45. The Eucharist is the instrument of Christian fellowship, friendship and adoration of Christ in heaven at the Father's right hand (Acts 2:42-46; Heb 10:12).
46. The Eucharist is a memorial feast (1 Cor. 11:23-26).
47. The Eucharist is totally inconsistent with demon fellowship (1 Cor. 10:19-22).
48. We ought to prepare for the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:27-34).
49. The Eucharist is to be spiritually not materially explained (Jn 6:26-58).
50.  Rome teaches that her sacrament is a sacrifice (RCC 1055/1365).  The Bible does not teach the Eucharist is a sacrifice to atone for sin.  Rather only the efficacious atonement of Jesus can atone for sin.
51. She calls the Eucharist a "divine sacrifice" (RCC 1068).  The Bible says that it is not a divine sacrifice.  Rather the ONLY divine sacrifice is the Cross of the Lamb of God.
52. She says that the Eucharist is a "representation of the Cross" (RCC 13666).  The Bible says that the Cross was a once-and-for-all work of redemption and it is not continued.
53. She says that the sacrifice of the Mass and of Jesus Christ are the same sacrifice (RCC 1367).  The Bible says that there is but one sacrifice not a continuation of His atoning work of salvation.
54. She claims Christ is offered up as the same sacrifice in and unbloody manner (RCC 1367).  The Bible says that only by the shedding of blood is the remission of sins.  There is no way for an unbloody sacrifice to take away sin.
55. She says that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice (RCC 1367).  The Bible says there is but one propitiatory sacrifice but not through the Sacrament of the Alter.  Rather the propitiatory sacrifice is the foreordained Cross alone.
56. The Council of Trent curses anyone who denies her propitiatory nature (see Trent: On the Sacrifice of the Mass: Canon 3).  Again the Bible says there was only one historic propitiatory sacrifice.  That is, it was at the Cross of Jesus Christ alone nearly 2, 000 years ago.
57. The Eucharist is offered through "human hands" (RCC 1369).   No work of human hands can save.   Rather looks to the crucified wounds of Christ alone for He alone is the one true Mediator.
58. The Mass is considered the only "true and proper sacrifice" (see The Catholic Encyclopedia, topic: "Sacrifice of the Mass").
59. How is the Roman Mass not a "re-sacrifice" when it is straightforwardly called a divine sacrifice (RCC 1068), a single sacrifice of the Cross and the Eucharist (RCC 1367), a propitiatory sacrifice (RCC 1367) and forgives sins (RCC 1414)?
60. The Roman Mass is surely a "re-sacrifice" because it is called the sacrifice of Christ and how is it not a sacrifice if it is propitiatory according to Rome?
61. The Eucharist cannot propitiate sin.   Rather only Christ alone can propitiate sin (Heb. 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2).
62. Hebrews 6:26-27 says, "For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself..."
63. Hebrews 9:28 says, "So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him..."
64. Hebrews 10:10-12 says, "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, ¹¹ And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God..."
65. Sacrifices over and over again have no value, "And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins..." (Heb. 10:11).
66.  No sacrifice on a continual basis can propitiate sin, "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near..."(Heb. 10:1).
67. Theophilus of Antioch (185 AD) denies that the local churches eat flesh, "Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh." (Theophilus to Autolycus, 3:4).
68. Athenagoras (133-190 AD) disagreed on taking part of flesh in Christian church history, for he says, "...But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act..." (Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8).
69. Augustine (354-43 AD) spoke of the symbolic Eucharist, "Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice?...For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Augustine, Letter 98:9).
70. Augustine again spoke of the "spiritual presence of Christ" regarding John's Gospel,  "...Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth." (Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, 99:8) and again he says, "...'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,' says Christ, 'and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us." - (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)
71. Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD) wrote of the figurative wine, "In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2) and spoke of the Eucharist in a figurative sense, "Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: 'Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,' describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,--of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle." - (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6).
72. Eusebius (263-339 AD) spoke of "wine as wine" and "bread as bread" for he said, "For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices, but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, in exactly the same way our Lord and Saviour Himself first, and then all His priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the Church, and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood." (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 5:3) and he refers to the Eucharist as symbols, "The words, 'His eyes are cheerful from wine, and his teeth white as milk,' again I think secretly reveal the mysteries of the new Covenant of our Saviour. 'His eyes are cheerful from wine,' seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, 'Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.' And, 'His teeth are white as milk,' shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, 'And his teeth are white as milk.' This also another prophet has recorded, where he says, 'Sacrifice and offering hast thou not required, but a body hast thou prepared for me.'" (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:1).
73. Origen (185-254 AD) says there is no spiritual change but the "bread is the same as bread" for he says, "it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord" (Origen, On Matthew, 11:14).
74. Tertullian (155-220 AD) says that the Eucharist merely "represents" the body of Jesus Christ, "Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the 'beggarly elements' of the Creator." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14) and refers to it in spiritual terms, "...Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be 'the bread which cometh down from heaven..." (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37).
75. Theodoret (393-457 AD) speaks of the bread as bread and the wine as wine, "For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before." (Theodoret, Dialogues, 2).
76.  We turn now to Scriptural statement on the institution of the Eucharist, "THIS IS MY BODY."  The question is the Bible-based meaning of "is."   The "is" in this verse refers to a figurative meaning of the Eucharist.
77. In light of the hypostatic union of Jesus Christ, the "material presence of Christ" according to Transubstantiation is rejected on the grounds that it forthrightly "mixes" the human nature as the divine nature in the literal body of Christ in the Roman Mass.
78. The Roman Mass is in violation of the Definition of Chalcedon in early Christian history.
79. Historically, I would argue for Calvin and Zwingli's view of the Eucharist (along side the early fathers above) which is summarized in the London Confession of Faith of 1689 for it says on the Last Supper under Chapter 30: 1._____ The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, to be observed in his churches, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other. ( 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17,21 ) 2._____ In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only a memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross, once for all; and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same. So that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ's own sacrifice the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect. ( Hebrews 9:25, 26, 28; 1 Corinthians 11:24; Matthew 26:26, 27 )
    3._____ The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants. ( 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, etc. )
    4._____ The denial of the cup to the people, worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about for adoration, and reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ. ( Matthew 26:26-28; Matthew 15:9; Exodus 20:4, 5 )
    5._____ The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. ( 1 Corinthians 11:27; 1 Corinthians 11:26-28 )
    6._____ That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood, commonly called transubstantiation, by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason, overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries. ( Acts 3:21; Luke 14:6, 39; 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25 )
    7._____ Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. ( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 )
    8._____ All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves. ( 2 Corinthians 6:14, 15; 1 Corinthians 11:29; Matthew 7:6 )  
80. The Eucharist should never be worshiped.  It is much like the bronze serpent that cured the people of Israel by faith.  Later it began an idol of great evil.  
81. No one should ever use the Eucharist as an instrument to pray through as if it were literally Jesus Christ.
82. There ought to be CONFESSION OF SIN to GOD ALONE before partaking of the Bible-centered Eucharist.
83. A spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean we ought to worship it, kneel to it or pray to it.
84. No one should think the Eucharist will bring them to eternal life, because only Christ brings life everlasting.
85. Jesus went up into heaven at His ascension and He will come back the same way as He left but He cannot be brought down by the work of human hands.
86. To imitate the continual sacrifices of the OT in the Roman Eucharist to pardon sin is Christ forgotten and salvation unattained and lost.
87. The Spirit-grounded Word is what makes the Eucharist set apart and supernatural only touching its basis in a holy memorial from Jesus.
88. Jesus has left us a way to remind us of Him because we so often forget what He has done in our place.
89. I suggest to you that if mere men had there way they may very well add to the Eucharist the alleged "redemptive sufferings" of the Virgin Mary because Mary and the Saints allegedly won satisfaction for the sins of God's people.  Such is already an fallacy of biblical and scriptural reasoning!
90. The only redemptive suffering is Christ alone.
91. The work of human hands is a work of idolatry.
92. No one should kneel before the Roman Eucharist.
93. The world would be better off without the idolatrous superstition of the Mass touching the forgiveness of sins.
94. To say that the Roman Mass is a "acid test for orthodoxy" is to clearly miss the point of the written Scriptures and church history.
95. Why do sinners still worship at a "Church" that has denied and cursed the biblical gospel and accepted the work of human works instead?

Break thou the bread of life,
Dear Lord, to me,
As thou didst break the loaves
Beside the sea;
Throughout the sacred page
I seek thee, Lord,
My spirit pants for thee,
O living Word.
Bless thou the truth, dear Lord,
To me, to me,
As thou didst bless the bread
By Galilee;
Then shall all bondage cease,
All fetters fall;
And I shall find my peace,
My All in all.
Thou art the Bread of Life,
O Lord, to me,
Thy holy Word the truth
That saveth me;
Give me to eat and live
With thee above;
Teach me to love thy truth,
For thou art love.
O send thy Spirit, Lord,
Now unto me,
That he may touch mine eyes,
And make me see:
Show me the truth concealed
Within thy Word,
And in thy Book revealed
I see the Lord.  (TH, 256).