EIPS SermonAudio.com
 
Menu Items
Start Page · Search
Rome In the News
Answers (Q&A)
Audio Sermons
Photo Gallery
Our Guestbook
Articles
Errors of Rome
Feature Articles
Union With Rome
Second Coming
Falsehoods
Pope: Antichrist
Priesthood: Christ
Caustic Comments
History Lessons
Rome & Politics
Contemporary
Sword (Bible)
How To Witness
EIPS Lectures
Other Interest



Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Date Posted:
7/17/2000

Contents
Gregory to Boniface
Rome On Orthodox Bloc
Put limbo into limbo
Paul VI and Aldo Moro
Break-Up Of Britain
Breach Wall of Secrecy
Crusade Is Faltering
Rome Dominating Europe
Father Christmas Bones
The Tainted Saint
Canonising John Paul
Rome Reaps What Sows
The ‘Hell of Nuns’ 2
The ‘Hell of Nuns’
Padre Pio Shrine
Unlikely Nun Supremo
Rome's Secret Weapon
The Irish Republicans
Irish Brigade In Italy
Pope's Irish Brigade
Why Pope Benedict XVI?
Where Rome Is Wrong 3
Where Rome Is Wrong 2
Where Rome Is Wrong 1
Athanasius ... Genius?
1st Pillar of Popery 5
1st Pillar of Popery 4
1st Pillar of Popery 3
1st Pillar of Popery 2
1st Pillar of Popery 1
Mandatory Celibacy
The Demon of Celibacy
What is the Individual
Infallibility of Pope
The Jesuits
Cult of Mary - 2
Cult of Mary - 1
Advance of Romanism: 2
Advance of Romanism: 1
Confess: Modern Sodom
The Perils of Popery
Purgatory Pickpocket
An Exposure of Popery
Popish Miracles
Punishment Of Heretics
The Eucharist, Or Mass
Doctrine Of Oaths
Who Intercedes? - 6
Who Intercedes? - 5
Who Intercedes? - 4
Who Intercedes? - 3
Who Intercedes? - 2
Who Intercedes?
Monasteries + Convents
Holy Orders
Rome's Rejection
Virgin Worship
The Jesuits
Saints And Angels
Duties Of Protestants
Condition / Prospects
The Inquisition
Popish Confirmation
Popish Baptism
Rome's Literary Policy
Justification
Clerical Celibacy
Indulgences
Image Worship
Extreme Unction
Catholic Unity
Communion In One Kind
Merit of Good Works
Auricular Confession
The Rule of Faith
Papal Infallibility
Luther Speak
Ten Commandments
Jesuit Oath Exposed
Imagery - II
Imagery - I
Antichrist to Light
Saint Worship
Scarlet Woman
Indulgences - Tetzel
Christ and Pope
Relics of Rome
Refuge of Lies
Papal Infallibility
Rome's Immorality
Infallibility
Rome Unchanging
True Papal Church
The Mass


Communion In One Kind


"Whosoever shall affirm that all and everyone of Christ's faithful are bound by Divine command to receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kind, as necessary to salvation, let him be accursed."
Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley

THERE is no error of the Church of Rome more easy of detection, or less defensible than that which withholds the cup from the people; language cannot make it more certain than that the Lord Jesus Christ gave both the bread and the wine to his disciples, and that they in their turn, did the same to the Churches formed under their immediate auspices. The Gospels in which the subject is mentioned, and the first Epistle to the Corinthians, have only to be looked at to render this clear beyond dispute; yet in the teeth of this fivefold demonstration, the Council of Trent issued the following dictum, fortifying, as usual, by anathema maranatha:

"Whosoever shall affirm that all and everyone of Christ's faithful are bound by Divine command to receive the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kind, as necessary to salvation, let him be accursed."

This is one of a multitude of reasons for withholding the Scriptures from the people, since they would at once discover the imposture. The priesthood, as if aware that a fact so clear and simple cannot be concealed, have resorted to a fetch. They maintain that the Scriptures left it indifferent to receive it in one kind or both. The proper method of meeting this assertion is just to deny it, and to call upon the priests for proof.

To answer their own ends, they have mutilated the second commandment, and thence they mutilate the institution of the Lord's Supper—in consequence of which it now ceases to be the Lord's Supper at all, and becomes a something utterly unlike it, and unknown to the Apostles; but granting what we deny, that the wafer was a sufficient representation of the body of Christ, where is the representation of his blood that blood to which so much importance attaches in the Divine economy?

So far as the people are concerned, it is wholly without representation. It is stated, indeed, that in virtue of Transubstantiation, "Christ's whole and entire body and soul and divinity is received under one kind only"—that is, one memorial or the other, either the bread or the wine. Absurdity so revolting merits no reply other than indignant remonstrance or sharp rebuke, since it is an impious trifling of the highest subject about which the mind of man can be exercised.

It is no marvel if men who have dealt so freely with the Sacred Scriptures as a whole, and who withhold from the people, should take away half the ordinance of the Supper, and so modify that which remains as to render it no longer cognisable by those whose judgments of the thing have been found upon inspired records. No two things are less like each other than the Christian Supper and the Popish Mass; that the latter might be harmonized with the former, Christ should have stood in the upper room, and having performed a variety of mysterious acts, have stood up and told his disciples that Transubstantiation was completed. They should then have knelt around Him while He placed a particle of the bread, with his own hand, successively on their tongues, protruded for that purpose, wholly withholding the wine from them, and taking it Himself.

This mutilation of the original institution, more than most other deeds of Popery, bears the character of impious wantonness; it is a deed largely without a reason beyond the very obvious and serious one of carrying out the governing principle of opposition to Christ, and a determination in everything to set aside his arrangements, and to subvert his authority. This is conduct, which most richly merits, in all matters and in all respects, the designation assigned it in prophecy—"Antichrist." This is a point at which, at the outset, the Protestants yielded a very vigorous opposition, which had the effect of leading the Papal party, in the celebrated catechism of the Council of Trent, to attempt reasons which are of a character so contemptible that it would have been far more politic to have withheld them.

These reasons are in substance as follows:—"It is done lest the cup, being put into the hands of the people, any of the blood of the Lord should be spilt; lest the wine should become sour when kept for the sick. Many cannot bear the taste or the smell of wine, and find it injurious to health; in many countries it is difficult, if not impossible, to procure wine; lastly, withholding it serves to overthrow the heresy of those who deny that a whole Christ cannot be received in one kind."

It is difficult to deal gravely with such reasons for the act, since it is felt that to do so would be to offer an indignity to common sense. Still, argumentation on these childish and contemptible reasons has most needlessly cumbered the pages of controversy. The thing is beneath our notice. The proper way is at once to appeal to the Scriptures. It is a pure question of language in the hands of common sense.

It was felt, however, that the withdrawal of the cup was a great experiment upon mankind; but they had been already so blinded and so prostrated that there was very little danger in the attempt. It was, moreover, done by degrees, and it was not until the Council of Constance, in 1415, that the decree was proposed for the universal interdict of the cup to the people—an interdict against which reason and piety so revolted that obedience was by no means general for a considerable time. There was great opposition at the Council of Trent, and many noble spirits were found loudly and indignantly denouncing the violation of Scripture and of Divine appointments.

Bavaria was signalised in this way by its envoy, who, in uttering his protest, vehemently denounced the clergy, on the ground of their corruptions and profligacy. He boldly affirmed that there were not more than three or four who did not keep concubines, or who had not contracted clandestine marriages. The Bohemians occupied a position of equal honour; but opposition was to no purpose. The evil work went on till it was completed.

The Council of Trent might be viewed as the mightiest muster the Prince of Darkness ever made for the overthrow of Scripture truth and its representatives. Three Patriarchs, nineteen Archbishops, one hundred and forty-eight Bishops, three Abbots, six Generals of Orders, three Doctors of Rolls, and ninety-four Divines united to decree that the believing, teaching, and preaching of the priesthood should be according to the decree. That decree was to the effect that although Christ gave to the Apostles both bread and wine, yet it was not necessary to give both to the people, but that the Church—meaning themselves—had the power to alter, or modify, or institute any ordinance.

On this occasion it was further decreed that the Sacramental Communion of the Eucharist is not necessarily obligatory on children who have not attained the use of reason, for being regenerated in the laved of Baptism, and incorporated into Christ, they cannot lose the gracious state of children of God, which is acquired at that time. Raving completed the decree to this effect, as was their custom, they fortified the whole by a fourfold anathema against those who dispute it.

Thus was completed one of those acts of rebellion against the Head of the Church, and subversions of his Divine authority, which so signally characterizes the entire fabric of the Church of Rome—the great, the universal, the malignant opponent of the Church of Christ. By this, as in all other acts, under pretence of magnifying Him, she pours contempt on his wisdom, and overrules his enactments, thus fulfilling the predictions that had gone before concerning herself and her Head, that he should "oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God and that is worshipped, so that he, as God, should sit in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," 2 Thess, ii. 4.

It adds, moreover, to the system of lying wonders; one fabrication reposes on another; the mighty structure is reared by adding impiety to impiety, lie to lie, one deception to another deception. This act clearly could not have been done but for Transubstantiation. It did not necessarily arise out of that, but was sustained by it. But for this the thing could not have been for a moment defended. Its deviation from the ancient practice, and from the Sacred Scriptures, was not to be denied even by the Popish priesthood, but the authority of the Church to "alter times and laws," and the withdrawal of the Word of God from the people, set all right, suppressed every jar, and stifled all discord.

Reader, the case is now complete. We will add no more. It lies with you, therefore, to form a judgment for yourself, and to declare it. Taking the Sacred Scriptures for your rule, you cannot err; and with confidence we leave the matter in your hands, willing to abide by your decision. It shall be yours to describe the character of the conduct with which the Church of Rome is chargeable in

Which has yet been set before you in these pages more impressively illustrates her impiety and her malignant opposition to everything that bears the name of Christ, and presents the impress of his authority.

Back to Top

http://www.ianpaisley.org
Email: eips_info@yahoo.co.uk
Return to EIPS Main Menu


Menu Items
- Start Page · Search - Rome In the News - Answers (Q&A) - Audio Sermons - Photo Gallery - Our Guestbook 
- Errors of Rome - Feature Articles - Union With Rome - Second Coming - Falsehoods - Pope: Antichrist 
- Priesthood: Christ - Caustic Comments - History Lessons - Rome & Politics - Contemporary - Sword (Bible) 
- How To Witness - EIPS Lectures 
Site best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 in 800x600 resolution.
© 1999 Ian Paisley. All rights reserved.