Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones, who died more than 30 years ago, wrote in the latter portion of his life, my contention is that the increase in Roman Catholicism is due to one thing only, and that is a weak and flabby Protestantism that does not know what it believes. Now, if he wrote that well over 30 years ago, what would he write now? This last week, we have witnessed Protestants and Evangelicals lining up if not literally, then figuratively, to kiss the papal rig and indicate that he's not a very bad guy after all. But I want to tell you tonight that every time Pope Francis officiated at a mass during what I call his invasion of America, He crucified the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame. And there were several such occurrences during the days that he spent in this country. The language that I use occurs in Hebrews chapter 6, and it's certainly appropriate for this situation, although in that context it addresses something else. The epistle to the Hebrews, from which we have read, stresses the importance of Christ's unique sacrifice. Great emphasis on the fact that this is the sacrifice to which all of the ceremonial sacrifices in the Old Testament pointed. This passage that we have read underlines three fundamental truths in regard to Christ's death on the cross. It was a sacrifice by blood, it was a sacrifice by his own blood, and it was a sacrifice by his own blood offered once for all time, never to be repeated. No one can deny these ideas without wrecking the authority of Holy Scripture and undermining the perfection of Christ's sacrificial work. If the sacrifice of Christ must be renewed perpetually, then it was not sufficient. If it was not sufficient, it was not perfect. If it was not perfect, it cannot avail to save a single soul. And if it cannot avail to save a single soul, then it is of no value whatsoever. But the Bible says that the sacrifice of Christ has value. In fact, inestimable value. But the Roman Catholic Church and its leader, Pope Francis, as long as he will occupy that place, maintains that the sacrifice of the cross must be renewed until the end of time. For centuries, the Roman Church has taught that the Mass is an effective sacrifice by the priest for the sins of the people living and dead. In the institution of the Mass, that the Roman Church has confirmed is central to its whole system of worship, there is a powerful attack on the very doctrines of which we read in Hebrews chapter 9. And the Church undertakes this approach using as its cover the old lie that the Church is the custodian of the truth. And so it alone has the right to say what the truth is. Therefore, no one may condemn the Church of Rome and be in submission to the Roman Pontiff. I think there are a lot of American Catholics that will need to be educated about that truth. Because the church maintains that you must be in submission to the Roman pontiff if you would be saved. There was a statement published in 1302, more than seven centuries ago, that said absolutely. It is altogether necessary for the salvation of every creature that he be in subjection unto the Roman pontiff. This evening, we're going to look to the scriptures and find there the truth about the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. Because far from being a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, the Roman mass is really an open blasphemy against the work of Christ. So this evening, let us consider sacrilege. on the mass altar. Sacrilege on the mass altar. For a long time, those who have contended for the truth of the gospel have met the charge that they are needlessly divisive, probably bigoted, maybe even hateful. But the greatest act of love that we can show to Roman Catholic people, or to any people really, is to maintain the standards of Scripture. The greatest act of love there is, is to give people the truth. Because only in the Scriptures do we have any real hope of salvation. Whatever surface changes the Roman Church has made, to deceive gullible evangelicals, cannot conceal the truth that the things that are dearest to her will not change. And one of those is the mass. The Second Vatican Council, that from 1962 to 1965, and I'm old enough that I remember in a vague sort of way, those events, not understanding their significance at that time. Supposedly, it was an exercise in ecumenical understanding. But the Vatican, Second Vatican Council, proclaimed the celebration of the Eucharist is the true center of the whole Christian life, both for the universal church and for the local congregation of that church. So the heart of the church's witness is in that statement. So we come to the first statement this evening in considering what we have read in the scriptures concerning the Mass. And the first statement is that the Mass claims to be a true sacrifice for sins. And while we have gone over this ground in other contexts, I want to go over it again, because it's amazing how readily these things are forgotten. The Church teaches that the Mass has the power to appease the wrath of God against sin. The Creed of Pope Pius IV, one of the official statements of the Church, declares, I profess that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. The Second Vatican Council said the Mass is a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated. And the same document speaks of, quote, offering the immaculate victim in the mass. In the book, This is the Catholic Church, there appears this statement. What makes the mass the most exalted of all sacrifices is the nature of the victim, Christ himself. For the Mass is the continuation of Christ's sacrifice, which he offered through his life and death. The Mass is thus the same as the sacrifice of the cross. No matter how many times it is offered, nor in how many places at one time, it is the same sacrifice of Christ. Christ is forever offering himself in the Mass. Another catechism puts it this way, in the sacrifice of the mass, the church offers again to the Father for the salvation of the whole world, the body that was given for us and the blood that was shed for the forgiveness of sins. For in the Eucharist, Christ is present and offers himself as the victim through whom God has made peace with us. And all of these statements are more recent, but they really rest upon a foundation that is more than 450 years old, and that is the Council of Trent. The decrees of the Council of Trent are still quoted as the foundation of Roman Catholic doctrine. Here is what some of them said. if anyone shall say that in the mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice or that what is offered is nothing else than Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema. Let him be sent to hell is what they're saying. If anyone shall say that in those words, this do in remembrance of me, Christ did not make the apostles priests or did not ordain that they themselves and other priests should offer his body and blood, let him be anathema. If anyone shall say that the sacrifice of the mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, that is what we say, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, but not propitiatory, or that it is of benefit only to the person who takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed. If anyone shall say, that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the mass or that the latter derogates the former, let him be accursed. Now the Bible makes it plain in Hebrews chapter 9 that there can be no remission for sins without the shedding of blood. That's verse 22. That's what the Bible clearly states. But here again, what the Council of Trent said, the sacrifice in the mass is identical with the sacrifice of the cross. The only difference lies in the manner of offering, which is bloody upon the cross and bloodless upon our altars. So then they speak of a sacrifice for sins, for the living and for the dead without the shedding of blood. And to accomplish this sacrifice, the Roman Church relies on the dogma of transubstantiation, which is an article of faith, only since 1215. So in the centuries before that time, it was not required to be believed. The doctrines teaches that the priest, receiving his authority and power ultimately from the pontiff, has the ability to convert bread and whine into the actual, literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. Another Roman apologist has written, with regard to the power of the priests over the real body of Christ, it is a faith that when they pronounce the words of consecration, now listen to what he says, the incarnate God has obliged himself to obey and come into their hands even though they should be his enemies. Now there's much more to say about the arguments for this idea of an unbloody sacrifice, but that it is blasphemous appears in the second statement to which I now come. The Mass undermines the finished work of Christ. Let us turn to the Gospel of John chapter 19. The Gospel of John chapter 19, verse 28. After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was said a vessel full of vinegar and they filled a sponge with vinegar and put it upon hyssop and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, it is finished. And he bowed his head. and gave up the ghost. It is finished. It was a single word in the Greek language to telestai. It was the word of the conqueror. It was the word the Roman generals would announce as they came back to Rome after successful campaigns to telestai. It is finished. Now if the sacrifice of Christ was not finished, how else could Christ have conveyed that idea? It is finished. But the Roman Church says, ah, but you see, his work was finished, but it was not complete. There needed something else. So Rome argues that the act of sacrifice itself has to be perpetuated. But let us look at the voice of scripture. Hebrews chapter 7 verse 26. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, who needeth not daily as those high priests to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's. For this he did once when he offered up himself." He did it once. Hebrews chapter 10. Verse 12, But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. By one offering. he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. Now let's look at our chapter from which we have read. Look at those verses again, beginning at verse 25. nor yet that he should offer himself often as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now, once in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. But as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of men. Once. There's a verse back in the Old Testament, Isaiah chapter 53. Famous chapter regarding the servant of the Lord, Isaiah chapter 53. Verse 11, He shall see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied. Ah, satisfied by the travail of His soul, meaning upon the cross. God shall see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied. So what that means is that Christ's work is finished. It is complete in terms of his suffering, in terms of his sacrifice upon the cross once and for all. So that to argue for a perpetuation of the sacrifice is to deny, to undermine the sufficiency of what Christ did on the cross. Now let's come to the third statement. The attack on Christ's finished work is blasphemy. I brought along this evening the Confession of Faith, and I was actually looking over the chapter on the Lord's Supper, which is chapter 29 in the Confession of Faith, but there's one particular part of it that I wanted to read at this point. and it is 29.2. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself by himself upon the cross once for all, and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God for the same, so that the Popish sacrifice of the Mass as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect." Now that is a powerful statement, and it is this very thought, I think, to which Lloyd-Jones was referring in part in that statement I made, I quoted at the beginning. Now, Protestants seem to see no issues at all with attending a mass, whether it's for a wedding, or a funeral, or any other purpose. Well, it's just like going to our church service. No, it is not. Would that we could remember what the Westminster Divine said when they said the Popish sacrifice of the Mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect. You see, the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the words of the Council of Trent by saying, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. There is a reason why. When the host, as they call it, is consecrated, it is held up. Because at that point, the faithful must bow in adoration. And let there be no mistake about what they mean by that. Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical, which read, in part, it was called the Mystery of Faith. And it read in part, during the Second Vatican Council, the Church has made a new and most solemn profession of her faith in and worship of this mystery. For if the sacred liturgy holds the first place in the life of the Church, the mystery of the Eucharist stands as the heart and center. Those who partake of this sacrament in Holy Communion eat the flesh of Christ and drink the blood of Christ, receiving both grace, the beginning of eternal life, and the, quote, medicine of immortality. He went on to say, we are not to tolerate anyone who on his own authority wishes to modify the formula in which the Council of Trent sets forth the mystery of the Eucharist for our belief. And he goes on to say, the Catholic Church is held to this faith in the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, not only in her teaching, but also in her practice, since she has at all times given to this great sacrament the worship which is known as Lactria, and which may be given to God alone. The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers the cult of Lactria to the sacrament of the Eucharist. They worship it as they would worship God. We therefore beseech you, venerable brothers, he went on to say, tirelessly promote the cult of the Eucharist, the focus where all other forms of piety must ultimately meet and convert. That was what Paul VI had to say. Now I want to tell you, this is the very idea that Pope Francis believes and that he teaches. And it was, I am telling you, at the center of every one of his masses that he performed while he was parading around our country. Against this sacrilege, for that is what it is, we assert that the teaching of Holy Scripture is that the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary was all sufficient and once for all, and that only Christ may receive the worship that is intended for God. The Westminster standards require that those who administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper do not elevate the elements at all. So I make a conscious effort not to do that. Don't hold them up in the air, don't elevate them at all, as though there was something supernatural about them. We look to the sacrifice of the cross not to the sacrifice of the mass. We look to the sacrifice of the cross as our only hope of redemption. And we refuse the idolatry of the papal system and especially the sacrilege of the mass altar. So it is true what Lloyd-Jones wrote nearly 40 years ago now. And it is a shame that it is so. But it is so because in so many so-called Protestant or Evangelical churches, there's no effort made to identify this sacrilege for what it is. We rejoice when we gather together at the Lord's table here we shall do a week from now to gather at that table to remember Christ. But we reject categorically any suggestion that what we are doing is perpetuating His sacrifice. May God give us grace in these days to value highly that legacy that has been given to us and to have our thinking made clear by the words of scripture and by the sacrifices made that we may have that truth and live in the light of it.