Refutation:

"[W]hile he was with them at table,
he took bread, said the blessing,
broke it, and gave it to them.
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him. . . ." [Luke 24:30-31]


First of all a semantic situation must be put to rest. I will paraphrase from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet by saying, "A rose by any other name is still a rose." If the Mass was not called that in the early church, it does not mean there was no Mass. Words which are currently in use to describe something may not have been in use in the early church. The word "Pope" for example is an English word and the English language did not emerge for centuries after Christ. So if such a word was not used in the early church to describe the Bishop of Rome, this does not mean there was no pope in the early church. But this topic of the Papacy is covered elsewhere in this web site.  Here we will refute the above argument regarding the Eucharist, the Mass.

As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration, i.e., the Mass (called "the Breaking of the Bread" in the New Testament). They have stayed the same until our own day.  St. Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

"On the day we call the day of the sun (Sunday), all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits (Liturgy of the Word). When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered (the priest) admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things (the homily).

Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation (the Intercessory Prayers, sometimes called the Prayers of the Faithful). When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss (the greeting of Peace).

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts (the Consecration). When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying (or singing): 'Amen.'

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent."

The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that form a fundamental unity:

- the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intercessions (the Liturgy of the Word);

- the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory thanksgiving, and communion.

The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form "one single act of worship"; the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.  It is clear from this that there was a "Mass" in the early Church.

Here is an example of the semantic problem often encountered in statements opposed to the Catholic position:

"In Justin Martyr’s description of an early church service a lot is missing that Rome includes in the Mass of the 21st century. There is no mention of a ‘Mass.’ There is no mention of a ‘priest.’ There is no mention of the bread and wine/water mix changing into the actual body and blood of our Lord. There is no mention of a ‘sacrifice.’" [The Apostate Church: Heresies of Catholicism by John Schroeder] This is by way of trying to disprove the validity of the Catholic Mass and assumes that because these terms were not used by Justin Martyr, they therefore did not exist. One must remember that Justin Martyr was writing to the Roman emperor using language that would make it understandable to the emperor. To gain a knowledge of Justin Martyr’s belief in this matter, the following was written by him at about the same time as the above description of the Mass:

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. [First Apology]

The Mass is the re-presentation of Christ’s death at Calvary. In one sense this occurred at one time in one place, Jerusalem in about 30 A.D. In another sense, since this was God’s redemptive act for all of mankind, it occurs outside of space and time and is eternal. It is a single act of God and space and time have no relevance. The Mass therefore, in this sense, either transports us back to the foot of the Cross on Calvary or it brings Calvary into our midst; it makes no difference. The Mass is a means by which our finite existence touches this infinite act. Since sacraments are signs established by Christ that give grace, the signs in this sacrament of the Eucharist are the bread and the wine and the words of the priest at the consecration. The first Mass was the Last Supper when Christ changed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. There is a argument that scoffs at this by saying, "How can He do this when His body and blood are sitting there in person; how can the bread and wine and Christ be His Body and Blood simultaneously?" But anything is possible to God.  Christ gave His Body and Blood on the cross at Calvary and this gift is transmitted to us via this Supper. The Mass is often referred to as a supper. The Crucifixion and Consecration come together as one in the Mass, at the Consecration.

The miracle of the loaves and fishes is narrated in the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, the same chapter in which Christ tells us four times that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. There is a reason why the miracle of the loaves and fishes occurs in this chapter. There is an obvious connection between this miracle and the miracle of the Bread as Christ’s Body. The miracle of the loaves and fishes shows how five barley loaves of bread fed about 15,000 to 20,000 people. So to those who argue that Jesus’s body cannot be consumed by billions of people, which is what has happened over the centuries, this miracle is God’s way of telling us, yet again, that to God, anything is possible. It is not our place to try to fathom this universe nor to try to diminish the omnipotence of God.

Therefore, is not the denial of this also a denial of the omnipotence of God? Is it not possible that God can do this if He wants to? On what grounds, then, can anyone say that He does not do this? Even the possibility that the Church is right in this teaching is enough for me. But given the acceptance of the Church as that founded by Christ (God), this teaching about the Eucharist is more than enough. Up until the Protestant Reformation the common belief was in line with the teaching of the Church. Contrary to the claim by many Protestants that the doctrine of Transubstantiation did not exist until it was proclaimed (added) at the fourth Lateran Council in 1215, there is an abundance of writings in the earliest centuries A.D. contradicting this. The use of the word "Transmutation" by Justin Martyr, quoted above, is a case in point of a belief in this doctrine long before Lateran IV. Here are a few representative quotes from the earliest centuries of the Christian era:

"Heretics abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. 110 A.D.).

"For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante  202 A.D.).

"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and Blood of Chrst. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ." [St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture: Mystagogic (350 A.D.)]

"For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ's nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, 'My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him.'  As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter 356-359 A.D.).

"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.' And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint." Basil, To Patrician Caesaria, Epistle 93 (372 A.D).

In order to understand the Eucharist as Catholicism does, one must place it within the context of all of Scripture. The common error of basing entire arguments and even denominations on only parts of Scripture, or even just single verses, often taken out of context, must be avoided. The most famous example of this would be Romans 3:28 ("that a man is justified by faith [alone] apart from works of the law."). Luther added the word "alone" here. This verse became the cornerstone of Protestantism. Luther failed to take into consideration James 2:24 which says, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" or "Faith without works is dead." [James 2:20]. As St. Augustine said, "If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself." But this debate about faith versus works is another topic.

St. Augustine also said, "The New Testament is concealed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament." The Eucharist is prefigured and prophesied many times in the Old Testament. The earliest use of the term "priest" is at Genesis 14:18 ("But Melchisedech the king of Salem [the future Jerusalem], bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God...."). This verse predates the Levitical priesthood. The priesthood of Melchisdech is that priesthood from which the Catholic priesthood has its source. "The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech." [Psalm 109:4] The prophecy of bread and wine also occurs in Genesis 14. Another prophecy is found at Malachi 1:11: "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord of hosts." This prophecy is fulfilled in the sacrifice of the Mass being celebrated every day around the world "from the rising of the sun even to the going down...." Jeremiah 33:18 says, "Neither shall there be cut off from the priests and Levites a man before my face to offer holocausts, and to burn sacrifices, and to kill victims continually...." prophesying the sacrificial priesthood as lasting forever. Exodus 33:38-39 ("This is what you shall sacrifice upon the altar: Two lambs of a year old every day continually. One lamb in the morning and another in the evening.") uses the word "poieseis" meaning "to sacrifice" or "to offer" which is the same word used by Christ at the Last Supper when He offered Himself. The reference to Christ as the Paschal Lamb is implied here and Christ is also known as the Lamb of God. In the Catholic Mass it is "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

In John 6 Christ refers to His flesh. The Jews take this literally and are scandalized by it, just as many Protestants are to this day. The Protestant argument says that Christ could only be speaking metaphorically or symbolically. But this is not plausible for a number of reasons. Christ uses the word "phago" ("to eat" or "to consume") nine times here. "When Jesus means what He says, and is to be taken literally, He reiterates and emphasizes His teaching. So in John 6 he restates his "scandalous" words by replacing "phago’ with "trogo" which means "to gnaw" or "to chew." The word "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. In John 6:56 Jesus says, "For my Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." Jesus uses the word "alethes" which means "really" or "truly," i.e., "My Flesh is truly food and My Blood is truly drink." ("Caro enim mea vere est cibus : et sanguis meus, vere est potus...." where vere is the Latin word for "truly" [the Vulgate]). Also, John 6:64 says, "The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life." Protestants often use this to show that Jesus was speaking symbolically. But there is no place in Scripture where the word "spirit" means "symbolic." And in the language of Jesus’s time, the symbolic use of the phrase "to eat the body and blood" was a way of saying "to physically assault" someone or to "destroy an enemy." Thus if this were to be taken in this symbolic sense it would be like saying, "He who hates and attacks me will have everlasting life." And this is preposterous.

Jesus always explained the real meanings of His teachings. But in John 6, when many of His disciples could not accept this "scandalous" teaching and left Him, He offered no explanation. He meant what He said and even drove it home with greater emphasis. He even asked His Apostles if they too were going to leave Him.

Protestants often argue that Jesus always referred to Himself in symbolic terms, as "I am the vine" or "I am the door." But in these cases no one asked Him if He was literally a vine or a door. But in John 6 they do ask Him if His Flesh and Blood were real food and drink. They knew He was speaking literally, not symbolically.

One more Protestant argument says that Jesus would never have meant this literally because drinking blood and eating some sacrificed meats was prohibited but 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, Romans 14:14-18, and 1 Timothy 4:3 indicate that all foods, including meat, strangled or with blood, could be eaten by the Christian.

Further proof that Jesus meant what He said comes from the Last Supper when the words "This is my Body and Blood" were spoken. He used the word from the Aramaic meaning "estin" in Greek which means "this really is." He could have used one of the 30 words in Aramaic which means "represents" but he chose the Aramaic word which means "IS," i.e., "really IS." Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11:23, "the cup of the blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?"

Paul, in 1 Corinthians, gives the earliest account of the Last Supper (written before the Gospels): "the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: do this for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: do this, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he comes. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." [1 Corinthians 11:23-29]

At the Last Supper Jesus was celebrating the seder meal with the Apostles which required that they drink four cups of wine. But Jesus withheld the fourth cup to demonstrate that the meal was not complete until His sacrifice on the cross when He then drank the fourth cup as offered on a hyssop branch. This fourth cup was always called the "cup of consummation." After the hyssop Jesus said, "It is consummated" and the sacrificial seder meal which had begun in the upper room was now completed.

Protestants argue that all we need to do is accept Jesus as our personal savior. But Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 that the Lamb has been sacrificed and that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast by eating the Lamb. When Jesus said at the Last Supper to "do this as a remembrance" He used the word "anamnesis" ("remembrance") which means "to make actually present" by the power of God. The word "askarah" is the same in Hebrew and carries the same meaning. To the Apostles, who knew the meaning of His words, they took this to mean exactly that. It is a word used by the Jews in commemoration of the Passover and which means making the Passover really present to them. It makes them part and parcel of the original Passover, transcending time. So too does this "remembrance" as celebrated at the Mass make us truly part and parcel of this "Passover" from sin to life, by Jesus’s eternal one time death on the cross.

The Book of Revelation is really all about the Catholic Mass. In spite of all the ranting and raving and hoopla surrounding this book, with its thousands of fanciful interpretations, it is nothing more than a coded description of the Mass. Read Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper for a thorough explanation. Jesus is described as the "Lamb" 28 times in Revelation.

Here is a listing of the parallels between Revelation and the Mass:

Rev. 1:6, 20:6 – the priesthood of the faithful is the Church’s identification on earth.

Rev. 1:10 – the liturgy takes place on Sunday.

Rev. 1:12, 2:5 – lampstands, or Menorahs, are in heaven. Candles have always been used at the Catholic Mass.

Rev. 1:13, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 15:6, 19:13-14 – priests wear special vestments in heaven, as they do during the celebration of the Mass.

Rev. 2:5, 16, 21; 3:3; 16:11 – there is a penitential rite in heaven of which there is during the Mass.

Rev. 2:17 – Manna is given to the faithful in heaven which is the same as the Eucharistic manna given at Mass.

Rev. 4:4, 5:14, 11:16, 14:3, 19:4 – there are priests ("presbyteroi") in heaven who offer sacrifice. The definition of a priest is one who offers sacrifice and, in this case, the eternal sacrifice of Jesus in the Holy Mass on earth.

Rev. 4:8 – heaven’s liturgical chant, "Holy, Holy, Holy" is used at every Mass.

Rev. 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12, 18:1-8 – the many antiphonal chants in heaven are similar to those used in the Mass.

Rev. 5:1 – there is a book (scroll) of God’s word in heaven which reflects the Liturgy of the Word during Mass.

Rev. 5:8, 6:9-11, 8:3-4 – heaven’s emphasis on the intercession of the saints is the same as at the Mass.

Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4 – incense is used in heaven as at the Mass.

Rev. 5:14, 7:12, 19:4 – the concluding prayer in heaven is the great "Amen" which is the same as used in the Mass.

Rev. 6:9 – martyrs are seen under the heavenly altar which is similar to the Church’s tradition of keeping relics of saints under the altar (in the pre-Vatican II churches).

Rev. 7:3, 14:1, 22:4 – there is the sign of the cross in heaven (the "tau") which is used during the Mass.

Rev. 7:9, 14:6 – the universality (catholicity) of heaven is the essence of the Catholic faith on earth.

Rev. 8:1 – silent contemplation in heaven is the same as that during Mass.

Rev. 8:3, 11:1, 14:18, 16:7 – there is an altar in heaven. An altar is not needed if no sacrifice is offered.

12:1-6, 13-17 – the heavenly emphasis on the Blessed Virgin Mary is the same as the emphasis granted her in the Mass.

Rev. 12:7 – the intercession of Michael the Archangel in heaven is asked for during the Mass.

Rev. 15:7; 16:1-4, 8, 10, 12, 17; 21:9 – there are chalices in the heavenly liturgy, just as in the liturgy of the Mass.

Rev. 14:4 – there are consecrated celibates in heaven, just as there are consecrated celibate priests celebrating the Mass.

Rev. 15:3-4 – the "Gloria" is recited in heaven as it is during the Mass.

Rev. 15:5 – there is a tabernacle in heaven, just as there is a tabernacle inside every Catholic church.

Rev. 17, 19:9 – the Lamb is consumed at heaven’s marriage supper as it is at the Lamb’s supper in the Mass.

Rev. 19:1, 3, 5, 6 – the "Alleluia" is recited in heaven, just as it is during the Mass.

Summary

• Justin Martyr described the Mass in the year 155, showing the same format as is performed today, with the two liturgies of the Word and of the Eucharist.
• The Mass is the re-presentation of Christ's Sacrifice, transcending Time.
• The Miracle of the loaves and fishes prefigures the Miracle of the Eucharist.
• Belief in the "Transubstantiation" is abundantly evident in the writings of the early Church Fathers, even if the word itself was not coined until the Lateran Council of 1215.
• John 6, when considering the original words and their meaning, indicates that Jesus's words in this chapter are to be taken literally.
• Paul corroborates John 6 in 1 Corinthians 11:32, 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, and 1 Corinthians 5:7-8.
• Revelation has numerous verses that directly speak of the Mass.

[References: www.scripturecatholic.com (especially for the Revelation table), www.theworkofgod.org; Catholic Doctrine in Scripture by Gregory Oatis; Catholic Verse Finder by Catholic Seminars; The Catholic Verses by Dave Armstrong; A Textual Concordance of the Holy Scriptures by Thomas David Williams; The Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina]

                                          
After the First Communion by Stephen Smith (1879)