[Dr. Eckleburg]

EIGHT CHARGES AGAINST THE MASS
by John Calvin

If in Paul's times an ordinary abuse of the Supper could kindle the wrath of God against the Corinthians, so that he punished them thus severely, what ought we to think as to the state of matters at the present day?

We see, throughout the whole extent of Popery, not merely horrid profanations of the Supper, but even a sacrilegious abomination set up in its room.  

In the first place, it is prostituted to filthy lucre (I Timothy 3:8) and merchandise.

Secondly, it is maimed, by taking away the use of the cup.

Thirdly, it is changed into another aspect, by its having become customary for one to partake of his own feast separately, participation being done away.

Fourthly, there is there no explanation of the meaning of the sacrament, but a mumbling that would accord better with a magical incantation, or the detestable sacrifices of the Gentiles, than with our Lord's institution.

Fifthly, there is an endless number of ceremonies, abounding partly with trifles, partly with superstition, and consequently manifest pollutions.

Sixthly, there is the diabolical invention of sacrifice, which contains an impious blasphemy against the death of Christ.

Seventhly, it is fitted to intoxicate miserable men with carnal confidence, while they present it to God as if it were an expiation, and think that by this charm they drive off everything hurtful, and that without faith and repentance. Nay more, while they trust that they are armed against the devil and death, and are fortified against God by a sure defence, they venture to sin with much more freedom, and become more obstinate.

Eighthly, an idol is there adored in the room of Christ.

In short, it is filled with all kinds of abomination

  (John Calvin, Comm. on I Cor. 11:30).

[Petronski]

Thank you for providing such palpable, demonstrable proof that Jean Cauvin was a lying scumbag tool of Satan.

[Quix]

I’m not a great fan of Calvin, as you know.

However, I believe his comments here are

very

discerning and perceptive.

[Forest Keeper]

EIGHT CHARGES AGAINST THE MASS by John Calvin

Wow! Thanks for that, Dr. E. He sure doesn't mince any words. :) I think it is very important to understand our differences with Catholics regarding the Supper, since they name the Eucharist (I think) as being at the very core of their faith. I still do not reasonably understand why that is, as I have nothing to compare it to in my own faith. So it's worthy of study. I think it will go far in helping to understand the relative mindsets involved.

[Cronos]

In the first place, it is prostituted to filthy lucre (I Timothy 3:8) and merchandise. --> How?

Secondly, it is maimed, by taking away the use of the cup. --> The Cup isn't taken away. The wine IS given in certain parishes. However, we further believe that if one receives the Eucharist in only one form (under the appearance of bread or wine) as in some Catholic parishes, he has received both the body and the blood of the Lord. Holy Communion may be received under one kind (the Sacred Host alone), or under both kinds (both the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood). "Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father's Kingdom... (However,) Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 281-282). "The Diocesan Bishop is given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite's becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 283).

Thirdly, it is changed into another aspect, by its having become customary for one to partake of his own feast separately, participation being done away -- huh? Participation is done away with?

Fourthly, there is there no explanation of the meaning of the sacrament, but a mumbling that would accord better with a magical incantation, or the detestable sacrifices of the Gentiles, than with our Lord's institution -- have you been for a mass lately? There is no mumbling.

Fifthly, there is an endless number of ceremonies, abounding partly with trifles, partly with superstition, and consequently manifest pollutions. --> ceremonies to ensure that we treat the Host with respect. Ceremonies that the French lawyer couldn't seem to understand -- Luther in contrast DID and seems to have retained this.

Sixthly, there is the diabolical invention of sacrifice, which contains an impious blasphemy against the death of Christ. --> ditto as above.

Seventhly, it is fitted to intoxicate miserable men with carnal confidence, while they present it to God as if it were an expiation, and think that by this charm they drive off everything hurtful, and that without faith and repentance. Nay more, while they trust that they are armed against the devil and death, and are fortified against God by a sure defence, they venture to sin with much more freedom, and become more obstinate. --> ditto as above

Eighthly, an idol is there adored in the room of Christ -- ditto again. Man, Jean Cauvin, the lawyer