The Catholic Mass refuted

Mass:

1). Hebrews 9:22 Sacrifice in a bloody manner not in an unbloody manner as utilized in mass. Christs body cant possess opposite properties at the same time. It cant be glorified in Heaven and at the same time be humbled on earth under the appearance of bread and wine. Christ is infinite and can do it if he wants to, but he cant go against his orderly nature or against the word of God in his behavior or actions (i.e. God cant lie, etc).
2). Luke 22:19 Do this in remembrance me is said by Christ (Communion is only a remembrance.) If Christ was actually present, then we cant remember him as He has bid us to do. You cant remember one who is actually physically there. You can remember one who is not physically there and who leaves token (simple objects of regular, non-divine bread and wine) that remind us of him. In fact the word communion means fellowship or memorial in Greek not Eucharist or the change of substances into the flesh and body of Christ. The stream of truth is all there.
3). Luke 23:40-43 The thief on the cross went to heaven without taking the Mass.
4). 1 Cor. 11:23-24 Do this in remembrance of me is said by Christ again to emphasis the symbolic meaning of communion.
5). John 20:30-31 You have no life in Christ without the Eucharist (or youre not saved if you dont take the Eucharist) is promoted if taken literally, but you have life by believing on Christ and his blood utilized on the cross for the salvation of all mankind not by drinking Christs blood and eating Christs flesh neither bread and wine.
6). Hosea 8:6 If a priest tries to create out of mere bread the physical body plus soul and divinity of God, it isnt God. Also, the mass claims the priests can create God from physical properties since they claim the wine and bread converts to the flesh and blood of Christ being God. This is extreme blasphemy. Wow. God cant be forced unto Earth by man or be created by man. God is unique, uncreated, and from everlasting to everlasting.
7). Hebrews 10:4 Jesus sacrifice was a one-time event with no repeats like the mass service. See also Heb. 9:28, 1 Peter 3:18.
. Rev. 1:7 Christ will come down physically when every eye will see him. In mass, every human eye doesnt witness him .See also Rev. 1:17,18.
9). Mat. 26:26-28 Jesus was present in communion. How can he be in that situation transubstantiated his flesh and blood in that area when hes present. Cannibalism comes into play by Catholicisms interpretation. Also what will happen if a mouse or another animal eats it. Can an animal eat God? The whole thing is revolting and ridiculous by using common sense and logic.
10). Hebrews 7:27 Not to be repeated daily involving his sacrifice and he died once for all. When a body is in parts, the parts cannot be individually separated to be equal to the whole. Not only is it declared the body of Christ is complete in each of the millions of wafers handled by the priests worldwide, but if each single wafer was broken into a 1,00 parts, each single part is declared to be a whole Christ. This cannot be said of a true human body.
11). 1 Cor. 14:9 The Bible forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue (i.e. Latin) Note: Until recently that Catholicism has changed this.
12). Romans 10:9/ Acts 16:30-31 Confession of faith not eating flesh and blood leads to eternal life.
13). Mark 16:19, Romans 8:33-34, Col. 3:1 Christ is presently at the right hand of God not coming physically downward to a church by a priests command worldwide in millions of churches.
14). Hebrews 10:12 Jesus made one sacrifice for sins and is at the right hand of God the Father.
15). John 19:30 Jesus said, It is finished making his all-sufficient, single sacrifice done and over forever. See also 1 Sam. 15:22 saying that Following the Lord is better than sacrifice (a man-made false sacrifice). Christ made his one, only sacrifice on the cross. It is finished.
16). Hebrews 9:11-15 Jesus Christ entered once for all.
17). John 13:18 Jesus referred to the communion elements as mere bread after being blessed not transformed bread and wine into flesh and blood yet alone his flesh and blood since Jesus Christ was present and he didnt cut himself or performed any flesh and blood miracle at that scene.
1 . Acts 15:10/ Acts 21:25 Forbids eating blood used in religious services. See also Leviticus 3:17, 7:26-27, Acts 15:28-29, plus Gen. 9:3-4.
19). 1 Cor. 27-29 Unbelievers shouldnt take communion; therefore taking communion isnt required for salvation.
20). Psalm 16:10 Corruption wont happen to the Messiah, but that happens to the Host after the service. (Also contradicts Newtons 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Daltons Atomic Theory, etc making the Eucharist scientifically and religiously impossible). Also the early church in consensus didnt agree with transubstantiation anyway. Examples include this:

Now heres great and thorough history on this subject. Enjoy. Polycarp in all of his literature didnt mention a word on transubstantiation or the Eucharist being Christ on an object. One of the earliest works outside the Bible discussing NT rules was the Didache. In chapter 9, it only calls communion eucharistic thanksgiving and spiritual food and drink not a wafer which suddenly transforming into the bread and body of Christ. Justin Marytr in First Apology Chapter 66 and 67 plus his Dialogue with Typho Chapter 41 and 70 only calls communion a remembrance or thanksgiving simply. Tertullian throughout his Against Maricon Book called the Lords Supper a figure and the spirit profits not the flesh. According to the Protestant scholar William Webster, the strictly symbolic view of Zwingli, which is similar to that expressed by Eusebius" (p. 122).

To the "symbolic view" list, Webster adds Theodoret, Serapion, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Macarius of Egypt, and Eustathius of Antioch. Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian in his Epistle 62 , Augustine in his Reply to Fastus the Manichean at Book 20 plus Fastus 6:5 and his Fastus 20:18,20, John Chrysostom, Sedulius, Cladius Scotus, Rabanus Marus, Albert of Gaul in the 700s, John Erigena Scotus of the 800s, John Wycliffe, Ratrummus of the 800s, Berengarius of the 1000s, Paulicians of the 600s, Petrobussians, Waldensians, Anabaptists like Michael Sattler or Menno Simons of the 1500s, Bohemian Brethren and other people didnt believe that bread and wine by a priests power could create Almighty God. They called it symbols, spiritual, or symbolic of Christs actions on the cross involving humans salvation.

Many Reformers like John Knox, William Tyndale, John Laski, Ulrich Zwingli, Aonio Palerio, John Hooper, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, John Rogers, and others before and after the 1500s for 2,000 yrs of Christianity who didnt mention a word on it, and they conceived of the Lords Supper just a commemoration of Jesus Christ finishing work on the cross. They all knew it was a memorial or symbolic of what he did on the cross. That alone refutes Catholicisms whole game plan on the Eucharist. One early person Catholics have used to validate their view of the Eucharist is a quotation by Ignatius in the 2nd century describing the Eucharist. Now that quote refers to him rebuking Gnostic heretics who denied Christ having existed in the flesh, etc. It could be a response by Ignatius to those heretics. Also the word Eucharist in the early church means simply thanksgiving from the Greek not transubstantiation or a transformation of the Host, etc. The usage of the object in the thanksgiving was simply bread in archaeological evidence not a circular wafer disk in the early church. Its very possible to assume he meant thanksgiving in communion instead of a literal flesh and blood transformation ceremony.

Today in the 21st century, Catholic apologists say that Luther believed in the Real Presence, therefore the Reformation was a fluke. The truth is that Luther did believed in the so-called Real Presence, but he denied transubstantiation in his Babylonish Captivity of the Church (1520) and other literature. He did believe in consubstantiation or that Christs blood and body was present along with bread and wine in communion. Zwingle, Tyndale, Rogers, Peter Martyr, John Knox, and other Protestant Reformers denied both transubstantiation and consubstantiation. Luther always denied the majority of Catholic doctrines like the infallibility of the pope, purgatory, auricular confession, veneration of images, papacy, etc.

The Reformers like all humans werent perfect in every aspect of their doctrinal/ religious concepts and Gods word is sufficient enough to refute the Catholic lie of the transforming Host used in a church service. This is Catholic apologetic desperation yet again. John 6 shows no mention of the Mass or the Lords Supper. The Lords Supper is mentioned after John 6 not before or during the chapter. John 6 just describes the method of salvation using metaphors like bread, light, door, etc simply. Thus, the historical record is in favor of Protestants and all Bible-believers not Catholics since the consensus of the early church all didnt subscribe to the lying dogma of transubstantiation.
21). 2 Cor. 5:16 Paul said Christ physically isnt here in a communion service. Paul said Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh, yea though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Paul said we know him no more in the sense of his physical disappearance in heaven.
22). Romans 10:16 Dont wish to bring Christ down from heaven in a ceremony like the Mass.
23). Mt. 15:17 Whatever comes in someones mouth whether if its the wafer or otherwise will enter the digestive system and leave out of the body. So, after eating the wafer, what would happen to it after 8 hrs? Too rough huh.
24). John 6:40/ John 6:63/ John 6:32 Spiritual meaning is displayed and belief count (No mention of communion throughout John 6).
25). 2 Samuel 23:14-25 It shows where the water poured unto the ground before the Lord is called blood. This was figurative language, which was put so forcefully to recognize the risks that had been taken to get this water in the first place. No one takes it literally just like communion elements were not literal flesh and blood.
26). Romans 6:9-10 Jesus died once, resurrected once, and is at the right hand of the Father.
27). A). John 8:35(bread of life)
B). John 11:25/ John 10:11 (I am the resurrection and the life)
C). John 8:12 (light of the world)
D). John 10:1 (I am the true vine)
E). John 10:9 (door)
F). John 14:6 (I am the way, truth, and the life)

These six metaphors show symbols Christ used to convey meanings of salvation, etc. Jesus didnt say This has become or is turned into my body and blood, which in Greek is touto gignetai, but the Greek phrase touto esti meaning this represents or stands for. Its figurative terms simply.


2 . Luke 19:9/ Luke 22:15-20 Zaccheus was saved before communion; so taking the Eucharist isnt required for salvation. Also, the elderly, sick, crippled, paralyzed, terminally ill, bed-ridden, etc couldnt possibly take the Eucharist, but only have repentance to be saved without taking the Host. That is even more evidence the Eucharist not necessary for salvation.
29). Luke 22:15/ Exodus 12:4 The symbolic Jewish feast of Passover eludes to the symbolic meaning of communion in the NT and Jesus was also present in a Passover service in the NT. Jesus also in John 6 spoke in the present tense not in the future, before communion ever happened. It refers to salvation presently.
30). Romans 5:19/ Eph. 1:17 Christ alone saves and not participating in a mass ceremony. There is also Daltons Atomic Theory. That means that atoms can neither be created nor destroyed. If the bread and wines atoms can disappear, where the bread and wine go after consecration? It cant be gone; neither can Gods flesh from heaven be placed to earth, which contradict the laws of science.
31). A). Jesus multiplied loaves and fishes (Mt. 14:17-21, 15:34-38, John 6:11-13)
B). Jesus turns the water into wine (John 2:1-11)
C). Jesus Raised Lazarus and the widows son from the dead. (John 11:1-44, Luke 7:12-16).
D). Jesus is raised from the dead by his own power (Mt. 28:1-10, Luke 24:14-32, 1 Cor. 15:1-
E). Jesus healed 2 blind men (Matthew 9:27-31).
F). Jesus walks on water (Mt. 14:22-32, Mark 6:47-52, John 6:1-4)

The following miracles have one thing in common. They have a great deal of physical evidence and many people witnessed these miracles with eyewitness proof from Gods word and other sources. In contrast, The Eucharist has no physical evidence since the contents of wine and bread stay and taste the same before and after the ritual. The contents disintegrate making it not divine or perfect. See also Luke 1:3 showing that senses are presented as furnishing infallible proofs. In Luke 16:31, miracles must be subjected to Gods word for confirmation. You test miracles by the scriptures and not vice versa. Any miracle that contradicts Gods word is rejected. The burden of proof rests on the miracle not Gods word.
32). 1 Cor. 11:24-26 Jesus said until he come meaning that Christ isnt present in the Mass physically and Lord has ascended on high on 33 AD.
33). Luke 22:29 The bread and wine are symbols which help one to remember Christ. Even 2 of the greatest Cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church (Cajetan and Bellarmine) both expressively confessed that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not founded on the word of God, but received from the Church. That means it cant definitely be taken literally.
34). I Peter 3:22 Jesus is at the right hand of God presently not repeating his sacrifice physically in man-made rituals daily.
35). Mt. 24:30/ Acts. 1:11 Rev. 1:7 The physical return of Christ will not happen repeatedly by a Host, but come while everyone will see or notice him. His whole physical body must not be presented or displayed in a wafer. Note: A different priest in different churches worldwide uses a different wafer and cup of wine for usage. Those objects are nowhere being consistent or equal making it not divine.
36). 1 Cor. 15:50 Flesh and blood cant inherit Gods kingdom. The wafer shows later corruption and cant influence the incorruption of Christ being divine not the Victim.
37). Leviticus 6:30 The offering of Christ upon the cross was a sin offering. According to this verse the sin offering was not to be eaten afterwards. The Mass and Christs sacrifice are obviously not the same.
3 . Acts 7:48 Jesus, who is God, doesnt dwell in temples or churches that issue mass ceremonies but is in heaven now in his bodily form.
39). Ephesians 4:10/Eph. 2:6 Transubstantiation contradicts the biblical doctrine of incarnation and ascension. Jesus has only one body, and its located in heaven. Jesus body is therefore not in thousands of tabernacles and churches around the world.
40). Heb. 6:6 The Mass is similar to crucifying Christ over and over again since Catholics claim Jesus is present in a wafer. Thats symbolically undoing Calvary and Christs resurrection.
41). Gen. 14:18 Melchizedek brought forth bread and wine. The verb brought forth is used hundreds of times in the OT, but never is linked to any ritual, sacrifice, especially a transubstantiated substance or object.
42). Mt. 24:23-27,30 /Luke 17:23-24 Someone claiming Christ is here whether in the Host or anywhere without biblical confirmation of every eye seeing him, biblical prophecy, etc is a liar. That (host/wafer) is a false sign and a lying wonder to claim that Christ is present in a host.
43). Exodus 20:4-5 Eucharistic adoration violates the 2nd commandment. We are to never worship or bow before religiously to anything (including the wafer which isnt GOD but an object) but God himself only. See also Isaiah 42:8 and Acts 17:29.
44). Ecc. 5:1-2 God is in heaven and humans who are alive exist on Earth. The Eucharist cannot be God, since Christ presently resides in heaven and his 2nd coming hasnt occurred yet.
45). 1 Thes. 4:16 This prophecy explicitly says that when Christ comes back in the physical form, the voice of the archangel will sound and the dead in Christ will rise first and the end-times will happen. There cant be a 5 or 1,000,000,0000 comings of Christ in Mass but only 2 physical comings of Christ as simply shown from the scriptures.
46). John 6:51-53 These verses are one of the most controversial verses in the Bible. This verse says to eat Christs flesh and blood to have eternal life, etc. But hold on, that is a literal interpretation and in the Bible Christ used a symbolic and literal interpretation of the scriptures. Now in v. 63 he gives his true meaning along with in v. 40 and v. 35. We can only give a symbolic designation for v.51-53 because the Scriptures throughout the Bible mention salvation without eating or drinking Christs blood.

Its all by his spirit not eating and drinking. Thats an action therefore a work and man is not justified by any of his/her works or deeds but by his grace through faith. Not to mention that if we follow the Catholic interpretation, it would contradiction tons of Biblical concepts of his 2nd coming, salvation, idolatry, scientific laws, etc. Christs blood is real flesh and real blood because he existed in the flesh. His blood was used on the cross for the remission of sins and his flesh was used on the flesh for all mans salvation. He was using the words eating and drinking to convey meaning. He contrasts the Jewish manna and his flesh and blood to show that point. The physical manna was eaten and the Jews died yet his flesh and blood (belief or internalizing him) is eaten for our salvation. His spiritual bread and blood does that alone not normal flesh, blood, or food. Normal flesh, blood, and food will decay as time goes on, but his flesh will not see corruption and his blood is very powerful for the salvation of all men.

Note in that chapter that there is no evidence of the changing of substances in John 6 neither of his disciples eating any flesh or blood in those instances. Its all symbolic and spiritual. Christ said to eat and drink in terms of internalizing him and his doctrine. Of course thats true and his flesh will remain forever as Gods word said. Christ has all Life and has the right to say by eating and drinking his flesh and blood (in a symbolic way) you have eternal life.
47). John 6:64-71 Now Catholics claim that this section claims that some of the people left because they rejected the Eucharist or literal blood and body of Christ, but that isnt the case at all. They just rejected of what he said in terms of our means of salvation only. Christ knew who would leave and let those who would reject him go. In those verses, there is no mentioning of the Catholic Eucharist neither of Christ showing his flesh and blood for people to eat and drink or the changing of wine and bread into his flesh and blood. Note that Catholics forgotten that in v. 68-69, Peter acknowledge that the method of salvation is by belief on Christ. Christ didnt rebuke him at all but in the end of John 6 tells of Judas as one who is a devil. The context is spelled out by comparing scripture with scripture. Catholics distort scripture to validate their beliefs.
4 . Mark 14:22-24 Jesus showed the disciples that to eat and drink wine to tell of his salvation plans and reality. Note that Christ said in v.22 . And as they did eat, Jesus took break, and blessed it, and brake it Christ broke the bread throughout the verses so there is no sign of change into the flesh and blood of Christ. To see a changing of substances and Christ commanding them to eat it is cannibalism plain and simple, but that isnt the case at all. There is no literal flesh and blood, but literal bread and wine to represent literal truths since Christ presently in that scene gave the disciples literal bread and wine. Jesus was the perfect example of this meaning. He represented himself in those simple verses. He gave his flesh by dying on the cross and his blood on the cross was for the remission of sins. Catholicism is ambiguous, because first she says you have to be baptized and youre saved, then communion, and other procedures to receive full status. She will never in her decrees or doctrine acknowledge that Christ alone is used for salvation.