The Roman Catholic Controversy Part 15

The True Bread from Heaven and Spiritual Communion with Christ

All right, let us bow our heads in prayer. Good and gracious God, we come before you in the marvelous name of our Savior, Redeemer, precious Lord Jesus Christ, Father in whose name we do approach you this morning, asking God that you'd grant us clarity in thy word to lead us in this discussion about the Holy Sacrament, Lord.

And we pray, God, that you'd give us great insight into your word through your spirit and help us, Father, to rightly divide the word of truth and, Lord, to live in such a way that not only would we know the truth, but the truth would truly set us free.

And we pray these things in Christ's name. Amen. All right, beloved. Well, this is an exciting one today. We are talking about mass. And so Dale, I gave you the wrong chapter. I didn't have my book on me.

I was only off by two chapters. We're in chapter 11 right now. And that is, what of the mass? Now, this is a really interesting conversation, especially from this particular church's perspective. Now, there are kind of four-ish main views on communion, what's often called in the Catholic Church the Eucharist.

And so Holy Communion, there's kind of like four major views. Are you familiar with any of the views out there in relation to communion? Yes? Yes. Yes. That's right. In and around is a term that they use, yeah, yeah.

And then there is the memorialist view, and, yeah. And so anyone familiar with that view of the Eucharist or the communion? Right. Yeah, so no power, no presence, no, you know. It is just an emblem, a symbol, and it's nothing more.

Yes? Say again? Mm-hmm. Yeah. And then you have another view, the fourth view, which would be our view, which would be what? Which would be our view? So we believe in what's called the spiritual presence of the communion.

So there's a spiritual presence. There's a memorialist view, the spiritual view. There's a co-substantiation and then transubstantiation of the communion. So these are the four major views out there in terms of the Eucharist or the communion.

Anyone know what the word Eucharist means? Say again? Say it louder. To give thanks. To give thanks. Eucharist, yeah, in a sense, yeah. Yeah. And who often uses that term? Which group? Eucharist. Do we use that term often?

No. No. So which groups tend to use the Eucharist? Catholics and Episcopal. Absolutely right. That's right. And so some of the high churches among Protestantism, you know, sometimes use that term, Anglicanism, but then obviously in the Roman Catholic Church use the term Eucharist.

So let's look at what chapter 11 has to say and teach on this subject of the Mass. Obviously the Roman Catholic Church uses that term as Mass. And in the opening, so page 161, in the opening quotation here from John O 'Brien, I'm just going to read a quote here from the second and the third paragraph, where he says, Indeed, it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary, referring to the Mass, while the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time.

Notice the use of language here. The priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man, not once, but a thousand times, and the priest speaks and lo, Christ, the eternal omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.

Doesn't that just set your heresy alarm off? And so, I mean, it really is just... How they can say such things and not see the obvious contradictions, the obvious concern for the sanctity and the holiness of Christ is just beyond me.

What is wrong with that statement? Yeah. Amen. Faster. Yes. Victorious. That's right. That was a striking use of language as well, I caught that, you know, Christ on the cross. In Scripture, Colossians 2, verse 14 to 16, talks about the crucifixion as a triumph of Christ.

It's his triumph. It's his victory. And it's in it that he puts to shame the powers and principalities of this age, right? So far from being a victim, he is the victor in that act of self-humiliation and obedience to the Father, where even that is his crowning achievement in Philippians chapter 2, where it says that he was obedient even unto death, even death on a cross, therefore, or in the Greek, by which God then has therefore highly exalted him and given him the name that is above every name.

So in the name of Christ, every name should bow and every tongue should confess that he's Lord to the glory of God the Father. This is the crowning achievement. And so, though from a human perspective, from a pagan perspective, they see that as a defeat, where even the ancient pagans mocked Christians for the crucifixion.

There's one of the most ancient forms of barbaric vandalism and graffiti used against Christians is this picture depicting Christ on a cross with the head of a donkey. And it says, there's an inscription under it, it says, the God of the Christians.

And this is from the first century, this is a first century graffiti that was uncovered, I think in Israel. And it says, it was by a Roman soldier. And so the pagans often use a depiction of Christ on the cross as, again, as portraying the victim.

And yet for the Christian, according to Christian theology, this is the victory of Christ over his enemies. And so, you had your hand up, brother? That's right. Correct. That's right. Yeah, they do. Yeah.

It is in there. That's right. Yeah, Hebrews is, have you ever seen Dr. James White debate, you know, Roman Catholic priests? I mean, he just nails them in Hebrews. And one of the things that's said here in this paragraph as well, that's of interest, is that the priest brings Christ down from heaven.

So at the priest's command during the Eucharist, during the Mass, has anyone ever been to a Mass before? Okay. So what you'll see during the Mass, and really, Roman Catholic Sunday service revolves around the Mass, revolves around the table.

And I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that's actually a good thing. I think ancient Christian worship did center around the table. And so, and this is why we as a church practice communion weekly, because, again, it sent early Christian worship centered around the communion table.

And it is, and when we talk about, for instance, regulative worship, you know, Christ instituted the Lord's Supper. And it's the thing that He said to continually do until the end of the age, right? And so He didn't tell us what order the service should be, but you know what He did institute was the Lord's Supper.

And so that should be continually part of Lord's Day worship. So at a communion service for the Roman Catholic Church, what you'll see is that the church or the priest, the sastradog will come and he will present the emblems.

He will then lift his hands up high and he's essentially, again, this is where the mysticism comes in. That bread and that wine, mystically then, now at that appointment by the priest becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus.

So that when the members come up and they receive from the priest the bread and the wine, they are taking physically the blood and the body of Christ. Though it doesn't taste different, though the substance doesn't change from bread to meat or wine to blood, they say that it is still happening by faith and by virtue of the priest's appointment.

So it becomes the body and blood of Christ, okay? So they believe that they are literally feasting on the body and blood of Christ. What's the issue of that? Because let's look at Scripture for a moment.

Let's turn to John chapter 6. So to defend the Roman Catholic view, I'm going to read some Scripture and let's go into chapter 6 of John in verse 51. I'm going to start with verse 35 actually because I want you to see this vein of thought that Jesus begins with here.

Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me shall not hunger and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. Now let's jump to verse 51. Let's look at verse 48 and then 51. I am the bread of life.

And then he goes on to talk about the man in the wilderness. Verse 51, I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.

Verse 52, the Jews then disputed among themselves saying, how can this man give us his flesh to eat? Now this would be a clear sin against the Old Testament command against eating human flesh. The Bible forbids the eating of human flesh.

And so the Pharisees are rightly so saying, how is it that he's saying that we can eat his flesh? 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 you.

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.

Well Jesus seems to be saying here that the bread that he gives is his flesh, that the drink that he gives is his blood. Therefore, in order to properly understand communion according to Roman Catholic doctrine, you have to believe what Jesus says here, which is that the communion is his flesh and blood.

So what's the problem? How would you rebut that? How would you answer that? Looking at the text that was just quoted. That's a good answer. Anyone else have any thoughts? Pastor? That's right. Absolutely.

You know, and you used a good word there, you know, metaphorical. And Jesus says in verse 33, For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. And so Jesus is obviously saying, you know, he's using an Old Testament story.

What Old Testament story is he pointing to? All right, so you have the Israelites in the wilderness, God provides manna from heaven, you know, every Friday in preparation, double portion on Saturdays for preparation of Sabbath, for instance.

And God grants them this manna from heaven that falls down. And Jesus says, I'm the true manna from heaven, okay? I come down from the Father. I'm the word of God that comes down. And then he actually gives us the answer as to what he means by all this language that he's using.

And he does so in verse, I just lost it, I had it a second ago. I see, yes, it's in verse 63. It says, It is the spirit, this is Christ speaking, it is the spirit, this is John 6, verse 63. It is the spirit who gives life.

The flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. For there are some of you who do not believe. And so what Jesus is saying is like, don't misunderstand me. I'm not talking about literal flesh.

What I'm telling you are that my words are spirit, spiritual, and they're life, okay? So these are not things that you take literally, where you're going to divide my flesh and eat of me in some way. But that I am, and actually I would make the argument that John 6 is not even talking about communion at all.

He's not talking about communion. Communion had not even been instituted. The Lord's Supper had not yet been instituted. And it's quite a ways from it being instituted. And in John chapter 6, the point here is spiritual communion with Christ.

That's the true partaking of Christ's life, is being found in Christ. That's what he's talking about. And how do we know this? Well, again, he uses certain analogies and phrases here that lead us to believe that.

When he says, truly I say to you, in verse 47, whoever believes has eternal life. And later on he says, in order to have life, you have to eat of his flesh, drink of his blood. But he says that the object here is belief, is trusting in Jesus, knowing Jesus.

So he equates the two. So he's not talking about communion in this text. He's talking about faith in Christ, spiritual fellowship with the Son, which brings forth life. And it says, again, in verse 51, I am the living bread that came down from heaven.

If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of this world is my flesh. So again, this is a spiritual truth. This is a spiritual knowing of Christ. So communion is not, even though it may be foreshadowed in some way here, it is not the subject of which Christ is talking about.

So it's not the subject here. So again, even the best text that Roman Catholics use to try to make a good case for the Eucharist, to make a good case for the Mass and transubstantiation, you know, it falls woefully short because the context of John 6 is not even addressing communion.

It's talking about spiritual fellowship and life with Christ. Any questions on that? Yes. Well, certainly there's a comparison here, but even the analogies that Jesus draws here in the whole chapter of chapter 6, he doesn't bring up Passover.

Certainly there's a theme there though that one could deduce. But when you look at what Jesus uses as the great analogy, it's the man in the wilderness. So he's not even looking to make an argument from, you know, Passover.

And so, and Paul certainly draws that conclusion in 1 Corinthians 5 where it says, Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed. And so, that's certainly in view, but in the text itself of John 6, Passover is not the subject.

Any thoughts or questions on that? So again, we're looking at chapter 11 of our book this morning, and we're specifically looking at that second paragraph in the first page of that in 161. And I want to remind you what the quote is from John O 'Brien.

And he says, again, that the priest brings Christ down from heaven, renders him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man, not once, but a thousand times. Now, that's another problem.

You know, Hebrews, I don't even have to go there. You know the Scripture. Hebrews says that Christ has been offered once and for all time, okay? The sacrifice of Christ, there's a finality to it. Christ doesn't have to be offered over and over and over again.

That is actually, again, a mockery to the finished work of Christ. When Jesus is on the cross, it is finished. And then we, you know, to re-crucify him, and to think that the priest has this sacerdotal power and authority to bring Christ down, to offer him again as a victim of our sins.

This is such a far cry from the way the Bible portrays our victorious Savior on the cross. And so clearly, you know, what an abominable teaching. And it says, and the priest speaks in low Christ, the eternal, omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command, not to the command of God the Father, as we see in Philippians chapter 2, nor is Christ's obedience to the Father which exalts him.

Rather, it's now Christ's obedience to this sinner, the priest, by which now Christ is exalted. Just an absolute mockery of Christ. And this is truly anti-Christ. It's truly anti-Christ. This is the thing that Protestants, like, we need to, like, get back in our mindset, because we've lost this mindset.

We think of, again, Roman Catholicism almost as an equal, as a parody to the true Christian church, but it's not. It is a mockery. It is an anti-Christ religion and church and institution. And so, it's almost hard to choose, like, which doctrine is more abominable.

This is certainly up there, along with their doctrine of the Virgin Mary and saints and so many other things. But I would put this one as probably up there in the top three most heretical teachings in Rome.

And because it is an affront to the very sacrifice of Christ, the very finished work of Christ, this is a very dangerous teaching. Yeah. Yes. Okay. So, I just wanted to highlight that quote in particular, and I want to also see how the Council of Trent defines the sacraments and the Holy Eucharist, specifically in the concept of trans...

I can't do that word. I'm Puerto Rican. I can't do these words. Transubstantiation. And so, they say in Canon 1, this is the Council of Trent. It says, and this is page 162, if anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that he is in it only as in a sign or figure or force, let him be anathema.

And so, they are anathematizing anyone who does not believe in transubstantiation, which again, is that in the Eucharist, in the bread and wine are truly, really, and substantially the body, blood of Jesus together with the soul and divinity of Jesus.

This is also a false teaching in regard to their misunderstanding of the two natures of Christ, because in this statement, they're confounding the two natures of Christ together with the divinity and the flesh of Christ, where a true biblical understanding of the divinity of Jesus and the humanity of Jesus has a clear distinction between the body, the man Christ, and God in Christ, the eternal Son, second person of the Trinity.

And so, there is a more clear biblical distinction between the one person with two natures in Christ. So, Christ is one person with two distinct natures, distinct natures. Here they're confounding the natures of Christ and mixing them together in order to have this teaching of transubstantiation.

And it has to be that way, because they believe that there's a mystical element to this, so that there's a mysticism at work here. So, when the priest calls down Christ from heaven again, that his divinity is bleeding into the elements.

And that would be, again, a misunderstanding of the two natures of Christ. Yes. Correct. Yeah. It's difficult, isn't it? And if you hear a Roman Catholic priest explain it, he will appeal to the mystic aspect of this teaching.

There's a mysticism here at work. And Roman Catholicism blindly accepts mysticism in their religion. And so, again, we as Christians, we denounce mysticism in all its forms. These are pagan beliefs and practices.

Roman Catholicism embraces mysticism in their doctrines. And so, yeah, a very dangerous teaching. So you have it here from the Council of Trent itself, that if you believe that the elements are only a sign or figure or force, we would be more excited in the force way, right?

We believe in the spiritual presence of the elements. And so we are, according to Rome, our anathema. In Canon 2 it says, if anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and the wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearance only of bread and wine remaining, which changed a Catholic church most aptly calls transubstantiation.

Let him be anathema. So here's at the heart of transubstantiation is that this is a term, of course, so trans, that's a famous, that's a buzzword today because we think of transgender, but the word trans means to change, essentially, it's a change, and substantiation meaning substance, the word substance is used there from the Greek, so there's a change in substance is what the Roman Catholics are saying in regard to the Eucharist, but that it still appears, so there's an actual, they believe there's an actual change in the substance of the elements, but it only appears as if there isn't.

So truly there is a change in substance, it only appears as if there isn't, okay, it only appears, that's right, in essence, you know, there is, I'll give you another example, there was a guy who actually with a 3D printer printed the body of a Lamborghini, and it looks like a Lamborghini, have you seen this video?

The guy 3D printed a Lamborghini, but inside there's not a Lamborghini engine, there's just no way, right? Yeah, I think he put like a Corvette or something in there, but yeah. That's a great question, and you'll get different answers depending on who you ask, but essentially, anathemization in the Roman Catholic Church means to be condemned, so you're condemned if you believe this, and not only if you believe contrary to their doctrines, but that you've expressly have come to this knowledge, and then you reject it, so that's what they usually mean by when they anathematize someone in these grand councils and statements, so it's coming to know this, and then, because if that be the case, then most people convert to Roman Catholicism would be anathema, but again, they believe, and if you know this, and then you reject it, then you're anathematized, yeah.

Anyone else have any questions on this? Yes. That's a good question. You know, certain Catholic churches will have a place, you know, so you have your drain system in buildings, do they have a drain system that connects, that doesn't connect with the main drain system, so for instance, when they pour the wine, it'll go into the ground and not into the sewage system, because they believe that this is the blood of Christ, so we can't have that going into where all the waste is going to, so Catholic churches will actually have a system in which the wine will go into the ground, or my favorite thing is that the priest will just drink it all, and he'll get pretty tipsy or drunk at the end of it, and so, you know, someone's got to take care of it, you know, you can't let a good time go to waste, so, but you have usually that, one of those two options that usually happen, yeah, and there's tons of stories if you've ever grew up in a Roman Catholic family of like the priest like staggering outside the church, you know, so, yeah.

The wine becomes literally this sacrifice, which we are repeating again and again, and we know, we have a feeling about that, set that aside, but then they take great pains to say, but this is not a bloody sacrifice, and yet, this is the blood, but they say, but it's not really a bloody sacrifice, am I just picking on them, or?

No, you're not picking on them, I mean.

Is that worth even wondering about? It is, again, the mysticism at play here.

So, it is blood, it's literally blood, and yet the mystic element is it's not a bloody sacrifice. Correct, and that's because of the appearance. That's right. Yeah. My curse was brought. Yeah, that's right.

I'm sorry, I don't want to make fun of them, this is serious stuff.

It is, it is, and as Canon 8 says, if anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only, and not also sacramentally, and really, let him be anathema, and so to them, this is a serious issue.

For them, this is a life and death salvation issue here, and so if you diverge from transubstantiation, then you are, you know, cursed, you are cut off, you are damned, according to Roman Catholic dogma.

And so now that you know this teaching of Rome, and you reject it, you know, you are hellbound. But we believe a little bit differently, don't we, that we don't believe in the, obviously, that the elements become, mystically, the body and blood of Christ, where we call Christ down, and we offer him again as a sacrifice.

He's been offered once and for all time, and that's part of the good news, beloved, is that, is that Jesus, his sacrifice is sufficient, and his once and for all time sacrifice is truly enough for the sins of the elect.

You had your hand up, Emmanuel? ...once and for all sacrifice... Hebrews 10, let's turn there. Again, I think Pastor's probably right, this is a, I certainly put him in the top three, and it could be number one in terms of damnable heresies taught by Rome.

Because it is such an affront to what underlines the gospel, and what underlines the good news, the means of our salvation, the perfect and finished work of Christ. And so in Hebrews chapter 10, we've alluded to this several times, but I think it's important that we look at it and understand it well.

This is talking in the context of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. And it says, starting in verse 10, "...and by that will we have been sanctified," that is to be made holy, "...through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.".

Okay? This is not the first time or the last time that this phrase will be used in the book of Hebrews. It says in verse 11, "...and every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.".

Again, referring to the Old Testament. Matter of fact, guys, again, let me put a side note here, because this may be of interest in future lessons, particularly when I teach through Revelation. And it's that most people will put the book of Hebrews sometime after the destruction of the temple.

Impossible. It's impossible. One, because every priest stands daily at his service. He's talking the present tense. He's talking about the priestly services that were happening still while he was writing these things.

As these things were happening. There's no way this was written after the destruction of the temple. Because after the destruction of the temple, these sacrifices ceased. And there have not been sacrifices since.

And so this had to be written before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. And I would say the whole of the New Testament was written before 70 AD. And so then you have again, and he says that these sacrifices can never take away sins.

But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet, for by a single offering, again, not perpetual, not continual, single offering, he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

So who will we trust? Scripture or church doctrine and dogma taught by Rome, whereby they believe again that Christ is continually being offered in the Eucharist. He's continually, perpetually being called down by the priest and brought forward as a sacrifice for the sins, as a victim for the sins of the people.

What a far cry from what the Bible actually says and teaches. He's perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. The finished work of Christ is truly sufficient. And this is why this damnable heresy by Rome is so dangerous because it is an affront to that perfect singular work of Christ.

That's right. It's finished. And so who are we going to trust? And just the rest of Hebrews just gives us such great assurance. I just think we need to spend some time reading this because it is just marvelous.

Verse 19, Therefore, basically when that word is used, therefore it is as a result of what was just said, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain that is through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God.

So who's our priest? Jesus. We don't need a priest in order to perpetually bring us close to Christ. We have the great and high priest, that which is after the order of Melchizedek. He's the high priest.

He says, Let us draw near with true heart and full assurance of faith. Again, people think of these as reformed terms, but these are biblical terms. Talking about assurance. Talking about this complete work of salvation.

This is what we believe as reformed Baptists. That God has done a perfect, finished work so we can have assurance. With our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water, let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promises is faithful.

And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another all the more as you see the day drawing near.

It's the pastor's favorite verse to his people. Verse 26. Actually, I'm going to jump down to verse 36. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what is promised.

For get a little while, the coming one will come and will not delay, but the righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him. But we are not those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

I mean, that's the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints right there. There are those who will shrink back, but we're not of those. The elect is not of those who will shrink back, but we're going to be those who have faith and preserve their souls.

And so just a beautiful passage that encapsulates the finished work of Christ and the assurance that we have as a result of, therefore, because of what Christ has done, we can have such assurance. And that is missing in Rome.

Rome does not teach or have or confess such assurance as we have. And so we can sing with full gratitude and confession and certainty, you know, that great hymn of the faith, Blessed Assurance.

Right? Amen, right? In one of the earlier chapters, I can only paraphrase from Trent also, but they declared anathema on those who would say they're confident in their salvation. It was when you're teaching about the righteousness and how righteousness is something that we achieve throughout life.

Progressive, yeah. It's a process, your anathema. Correct, correct.

And so any thoughts or questions on the passage that we just read? So again, the claim of Rome is that Christ is continually being offered in the sacerdotal rite of the Mass, and yet what the Scripture teaches is that Christ has been offered once and for all time.

And so he's not coming down from the Father's right hand every Sunday at the command of a priest. Rather, he intercedes for us from the right hand of the Father and is continually able to make us clean because through that one sacrifice, he's sanctifying, perfecting all those who are in him.

Right? And so we don't need a priest to intermediate for us. We don't need a priest in order to call Christ down and give us his body and blood. Rather, we receive the true spiritual presence of Christ in the elements of the communion.

And so again, that's a really important distinction. So transubstantiation doesn't fit the biblical model. And then we looked at some of the texts earlier today from John 6, probably the best texts that they could use in order to argue for transubstantiation, and it's not even talking about communion.

The context of John 6 is not communion. Rather, it's spiritual life and fellowship of Christ. So they have no biblical foot to stand on in terms of their claims in regard to the Eucharist. And again, there's a danger here, and I skimmed over this a little bit, but I'm not sure you understand the gravity of it.

They also, in this doctrine, attack the two natures of Christ. Again, because they are mixing the divinity of Christ with the flesh of Christ so that it can be presented in the Mass, in the Eucharist.

And so that is, again, another damnable heresy taught by Rome, where they are confounding the natures of Christ. Even though they confess the same counsels that we do early on in church history, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasius Creed, which clearly defines the two natures of Christ, but they also, in the same breath, take away the true two natures of Christ through this doctrine called transubstantiation.

Any thoughts or questions on that? John O 'Brien was a very famous Roman Catholic who wrote a book that was read by probably millions of Roman Catholics. I think that was the book The Faith of Millions, which is now like The Faith of Billions because, you know, Roman Catholicism is like 1 .4 billion people worldwide.

And so a very famous Roman Catholic writer. And his writings are not authoritative in the sense that, you know, it is inspired or canonical or anything like that, but it is authoritative in that it's been endorsed by very high-level Roman Catholics.

In regard to the continual misunderstanding that they have of the sacrifice of Christ, notice what they say here. Again, we're in page 162 still. And it says from this 11 years later in another counsel, and they write this on the doctrines concerning the sacrifice of the Mass.

Inasmuch as is in this divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the Mass, is contained and emulated in an unbloody manner in the same Christ who was once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross.

And so that's what you were alluding to earlier, Pastor. The Holy Council teaches that this is truly propitiatory, and has this effect, that if we contrite and penitent with sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence, draw nigh to God to obtain mercy and find grace and reasonable aid.

Now this is such a contrast to what we just read in Hebrews 10, isn't it? So they say, okay, if you do this right and you come in this manner to this Holy Eucharist, to this Holy Mass, then God will be able to draw near to you.

But what is the means by which we're called to draw near to Christ here? Confidence by what means? By the once and for all time sacrifice of Jesus Christ, right? So again, what a far cry from what is presented in Scripture.

It says, for appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of penance and pardon, even the gravest crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered himself on the cross, and the manner alone of offering being different.

The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through the unbloody one. So far it is the latter from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, according to the tradition of the apostles, it is rightly offered not only for the sins, punishments, and satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also those departed in Christ, but not yet fully purified.

Okay? So there are those who depart dead, who are not fully purified. Is that what the Scripture just taught us here in Hebrews 10? No, not at all. What a far cry, again. It says again in Hebrews 10, verse 19, we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus.

Holy places in Hebrews is consistently a reference to heaven. By the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain that is through his flesh, as we have a great priest over the house of God, and let us draw near with a true heart and full assurance of faith, with our hearts cleaned from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

And so again, man, what a far cry from what is being taught here. And just to turn in Hebrews chapter 9, if you can turn there for a moment, I want you to look at what it says in verse 11 of Hebrews chapter 9.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent, not made of hands, that is, not of this creation, he entered, again here's that phrase, once for all, into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and cows, but by means of his own blood.

Thus, what does he secure for us? Eternal redemption. Okay? How can it be that there are those who have crossed the veil who do not have eternal redemption, who have not yet been perfected? How is that possible, biblically speaking here?