It is in her claim that the priest has the power to consecrate, that Rome speaks in the language of blasphemy, claiming that the priest is equal in power to our Lord and speaks in the very voice of God. "Consecration" as Rome uses the term has to do with the alleged power to transmute the elements of bread and fruit of the vine into the actual body and blood of our Lord.
The Council of Trent declared: "By the consecration of the bread and wine a change is wrought of the bread's whole substance into the substance of Christ our Lord's body, and of the wine's whole substance into the substance of His blood, which change has been by the Holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called Transubstantiation" (Session 13, Chapter 4).
In explanation of this language, Rome says: "By the substance of bread we mean its very essence, that internal, invisible something which, itself devoid of color, shape, weight, taste, etc., supports the qualities or accidents which are perceived by the senses. Transubstantiation, therefore, means that when Jesus Christ, at the Last Supper, pronounced the words, 'This is my body; this is my blood,' the Son of God by His omnipotent power transubstantiated or changed, the substance of the bread and wine into His living flesh; so that no bread or wine whatsoever remained, but Himself, body, blood, soul and divinity, under their appearances. So in like manner, every day at Mass, the priest, acting in the name of Christ pronounces the same words, and God effects the same change" (The Question Box, Conway, page 417).
The third great power of the priestly office is the climax of all. It is the power of consecrating. "No act is greater," says St. Thomas "than the consecration of the body of Christ." In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and authority of God Himself.
Since it is affirmed that this is a great power belonging to the priestly office, and that it represents the grand climax of all sacerdotal demonstrations, it will be in order for us to investigate it to the extent our limited space will allow. Rome not only teaches that the bread is the real body of our Lord and the cup is His real blood, but she demands under threat of anathema that her superstitious followers also believe that each particle of bread when separated, and each drop of the wine, is in itself the entire Christ.
The Council of Trent says: "Canon 3:--If any one shall deny that in the venerated sacrament of the Eucharist, entire Christ is contained in each kind, and in each several particles of either kind, when separated, let him be accursed." If the consecrated bread became divided into ten thousand crumbs, each crumb would in and of itself be the entire Christ; or if the consecrated fruit of the vine became separated into uncounted drops, each drop would be the entire Christ.
And if this were not too much for those who were nurtured on the pap of gullibility and blind credulity, the Catholic must also believe that he crunches between his teeth the very bones and nerves of the Son of Man. "Not only the true body of Christ, and whatever appertains to the true mode of existence of a body, as the bones and nerves, but also that entire Christ is contained in the sacrament."
Upon what foundation does this monstrous fabrication, with all of its ramifications, find rest? Upon the simple words of our Master, "This is my body; this is my blood," and the instruction, "Do this in memory of me." How did the apostles understand these words? They were all Jews, who knew it was contrary to the law to drink the blood of animals, much more human blood. They were rigorous in their observance of the law with reference to eating the flesh of only certain kinds of animals. They would have abhorred the very idea of cannibalism, the eating of human flesh, bones and veins. Yet, not a word escaped their lips upon this night. The impetuous Peter asked no question about the Lord's statement. Surely they knew that the living and real Christ was giving them only a memorial consisting of two elements. They did not believe that the living Christ took His literal body, and dividing it into the numerous parts, made of each a literal and entire Christ.
Can the words upon which Rome stakes so much, be understood figuratively? If I hand you a photograph saying, "This is my mother," do you conclude that I mean that the piece of sensitized photographic paper is my mother in a literal sense? If I walk through a public park with a friend, and he points to a statue, saying, "This is George Washington," do I suppose that he means the piece of bronze is the literal general of the Revolutionary Army? Did Jesus ever use symbolic language with reference to himself? He said, "I am the vine" (John 15:1). Shall we conclude that he was transmuted into a grapevine, and that each twig when separate was the entire Christ? He said, "I am the door" (John 10:9). Did he infer that he was a literal door?
Even Rome has difficulty in explaining her position, insomuch that some of her outstanding scholars recognize the problem. The Catholic bishop, Tonstal, admitted: "Of the manner and means of the real presence, how it might be either by transubstantiation or otherwise, perhaps it had been better to leave any one, who would be curious, to his own opinion, as before the Council of Lateran it was left" (The Eucharist, Book 1, page 46).
Cardinal de Alliaco said: "That manner and meaning which supposeth the substance of bread to remain, is possible; neither is it contrary to reason, nor to the authority of the Scriptures, nay it is more easy and more reasonable to conceive, if it could only accord with the Church."
The very language of the apostle detailing the observance of the feast, proves that it is a memorial for one who is absent, and not a recognition of the bodily presence of that person. The expression, "Do this in remembrance of me" surely points to the fact that the one thus commemorated is not present. Why should one do something in remembrance of Jesus, if the real Christ is present in body, blood, bones and nerves? Moreover, we are told that in eating and drinking, we "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Does this not indicate that He has not already literally come? If the real Christ is upon the altar, and visible to the communicants, as Rome teaches, how can the priest explain the term "until he comes"?
In the very same connection in which Rome declares Jesus consecrated the bread and wine by saying, "This is my body; this is my blood," He also took the cup saying, "This cup is the new testament." He did not say that it represented or adumbrated the new testament. He said it was the new testament. Is this to be taken literally? Rome does not believe so. She accepts it as a figure of speech. By the same identical reasoning, we accept what our Lord said about the bread and fruit of the vine figuratively.
The host (bread) is made of wheat flour and water, and is unleavened. It is baked with heat. Rome teaches that when the priest utters the words "Hoc est corpus meum" this unleavened bread is converted into the real Christ. Thus a god is produced by the work of men's hands, and men bow and acknowledge the host is "God over all" when it is elevated by the priest. This is contrary to the revelation of God, which amply shows that nothing can become God which is made with men's hands. Demetrius said, "You see and hear that not only at Ephesus but almost throughout all Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable company of people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods" (Acts 19: 26).
The prophet Isaiah condemns those who "bow down to the work of their hands, to what their own fingers have made" (2:8). The sweet psalmist of Israel declared,
"The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
The work of men's hands" (Psalm 135: 15). The Romish priest cannot deny that the wafer which he presumes to consecrated is made by the hands of men, and that he teaches that it is converted into very Christ and is worshipped as God.
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man. It is a greater power than that of monarchs and potentates. It is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. For, while the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from Heaven, and renders Him incarnate on the altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man--not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.
The above paragraph is a positive denial of the truth as revealed in God's Word. It is a clear demonstration of the extent to which a boastful priestcraft will go to delude and deceive a superstitious following. Let us note the fallacious reasoning in the boastful assertions.
Does the priest "reach up into the heavens, and bring Christ down from His throne?" The inspired apostle declares, "The righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is to bring Christ down)" (Rom. 10:6). Surely, according to Roman Catholic admission, they do not have the righteousness which is based on faith. Jesus was elevated to His throne by the power of God. Shall he be removed from it by the power of men? "We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven" (Heb. 8:1). Now Christ cannot be on His throne, if he is brought "from His throne" by every Catholic priest; He cannot be in heaven if He is "brought down" by one who "reaches up into the heavens." But since our "hope that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf" (Heb. 6:19, 20) is predicated upon His remaining "exalted above the heavens" (Heb. 7:26) no Roman Catholic can have the hope of eternal life during the time that the priest is "consecrating the Eucharist."
Can the priest place Christ "upon an altar to be offered again as the victim for the sins of man?" We answer in an emphatic negative. Such a preposterous theory gives the lie to the whole plan of God. To justify her special priesthood, Rome has to run counter to the divine scheme of the ages. Jesus Christ is no longer "a victim for the sins of man." "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself" (Heb. 7:27). Christ is not a daily victim; He does not have to suffer repeatedly. He does not require to be sacrificed daily for sins. "Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with the blood not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9:26, 26).
Notice the word "again" in the priestly language which says, Christ is "offered up again as the victim for the sins of man." Here is a good place to hinge the controversy between the false claims of Rome and the truth of heaven. Roman Catholicism teaches that Jesus must be offered again--"not once but a thousand times." The Bible says, "But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Heb. 10:12-14). Rome says "again"', the Bible says "only once." Rome says "a thousand times"; the Bible says "a single sacrifice for all times."
The boasted power over monarchs, potentates, saints and angels, is nothing but a myth, a fictitious fancy of a fertile, ingenious priestcraft, to make serfs and vassals of their fellowmen. "Priestcraft in all ages and all nations has been the same; its nature is one and that nature is essentially evil; its object is self-gratification and self-aggrandizement; the means it uses--the basest frauds, the most shameless delusions, practiced on the popular mind for the acquisition of power; and that power once gained, the most fierce and bloody exercise of it, in order to render it at once lawful and perpetual. Nothing is so servilely mean in weakness, so daring in assumption, so arrogant in command; earth, heaven, the very throne and existence of God himself, being used as but the tools of its designs, and appealed to with horrible impudence in the most shameless of its lies." (History of Priestcraft in All Ages and Nations, by William Howitt, pages 14, 15).
Does Christ "bow His head in humble obedience to the priest's command"? Such insolence should cause every humble member of the Roman Catholic Church to tremble in every fiber at the thought of upholding such a blasphemous institution. God raised Christ from the dead "and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him head over all things for the church" (Eph. 1:20-22). Our Lord bows His head at the command of no man. He is the Commander, not the commanded. He is not to humbly obey the dictates of any man, but all men must humbly obey His dictates.
The sacrifice of our Lord has been made. It cannot be repeated. Once He was crucified; now He is glorified. Once He was humiliated; now He is exalted. He cannot be humiliated again. "Being found in human form He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth" (Phil. 2:8, 9). The idea that a man on earth can reach up to heaven and take Jesus from His throne, and once more debase Him as a victim for sins, is horrifying to one who really believes in God. Truly it can be said, "They then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt" (Heb. 6:6).
The Roman Missal says, "If the priest vomit the Eucharist, if the species appear entire, let them be reverently swallowed, unless sickness arise: for then let the consecrated species be cautiously separated and laid up in some sacred place, till they are corrupted; and afterwards let them be cast into the sacrarium. But if the species do not appear, let the vomit be burned, and the ashes cast into the sacrarium" (Roman Missal, Mechlin, 1840). If you remember that the Romish teaching is that the consecrated bread is entire Christ, the abominable thought that Christ may be vomited up by a priest, who must thereupon rescue Him from the vomit and swallow Him again, unless nausea results, whereupon the entire Christ is to be fished out of the mess and laid up until corrupted, should be enough to turn the heart of every person from Catholicism as well as to turn the stomachs of all believers. Even the Pagan Roman soldiers did not subject the body of God's Son to more profane treatment than that required of the Romish priests.
As a further degradation, the common members of the Catholic Church were given the prayer which follows : "May thy body, O Lord, which I have received, and thy blood which I have drunk, cleave to my bowels, and grant that no stain of sin remain in me, who have been fed with this pure and holy sacrament. Who liveth and reigneth forever and ever. Amen." Is it possible that the literal body of our Lord should cling to the bowels of a man on earth, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth?
Of what sublime dignity is the office of the Christian priest who is thus privileged to act as the ambassador and the vicegerent of Christ on earth. He continues the essential ministry of Christ--he teaches the faithful with the authority of Christ, he pardons the penitent sinner with the power of Christ, he offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary. No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of "alter Christus." For the priest is and should be another Christ. The priesthood is a sublime ministry, more meet for angels than for weak and sinful men. Truly indeed did Isaiah proclaim with prophetic insight six hundred years before Christ the grandeur of the Christian priesthood in these inspired words: "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings and that preacheth peace; of him that showeth forth good, that preacheth salvation, that saith to Sion: Thy God shall reign" (Isaiah 52:7).
We have shown by indisputable testimony that Romish priests are not ambassadors or vicegerents of Christ. We have established it as factual that they are not authoritative teachers, they cannot pardon sinners, and cannot offer up the sacrifice of Christ. These are the foundations of the hierarchical priestcraft, and we have swept them all away. Any power claimed by the priests on the basis of the Catholic contention is usurpation, and without divine warrant. Every child of God is a priest. Any person claiming special sacerdotal powers is a religious counterfeiter.
The priest is not "alter Christus"--another Christ. There is one Christ. "Then if any one says to you, 'Lo, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect" (Matt. 24:23, 24). "For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'--yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" (1 Cor. 8:5, 6).
The apostle speaks of rebellion in which "the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God" (2 Thess. 2:3, 4). We deny that the priest is and should be "another Christ." This is the language of apostasy, a part of the bold effrontery with which men are silenced and the voice of conscience is stricken dumb. The words of Isaiah were not spoken of a covetous, pretentious and ambitious clergy, but of humble preachers of the gospel as shown by the fulfillment in Romans 10:14, 15. This is but another sample of the twisting of God's Word to justify an unholy and ungodly system by which men are exploited for gain.