Deception is the desire of Satan, he wants to have men take their eyes off of God and put it objects and actions..
I know what Catholics say about the eucharist, and I know it is not true, but a deception.
Those who worship Satan have rituals which attempt to invert Catholic rituals
Exactly ,They mimic the work of God.. and that is exactly what is done with the eucharist.. that have made the last passover meal into a false god, a false ritual that replaces the meaning that Christ intended..
Lets look at this ok?
If we go to John 5-6 we see Jesus on route to celebrate the passover in Jerusalem . As He travels He is attracting crowds that He is teaching ... He sees they are physically hungry and He feeds them with a few fish and loaves of bread .
After that miracle the crowds continued to follow Him. But they were not following Him because they were looking for a Savior, they followed Him to be fed by another miracle .
At this point Jesus rebukes them and He draws a Passover reference for them (remember that is where He was going ) He told them that Moses and the bread were a "type" pointing to Him.. The Israelites were fed manna in the desert as they followed Moses, that fed them physically.. But the He is the bread that will give men eternal life that the Father has sent .
We see that the unleavened bread of the Passover meal, that was done as a memorial of the salvation of the Jewish people in the desert , is a sign..a prophetic meal pointing to Christ.
Now move to the final passover meal..it is final because the prophesy is fulfilled shortly after it
Jesus holds up the bread...the remembrance of the manna in the desert and reveals the prophetic nature of it..He says THIS is my body ...
He then tells them to now do this in memory of HIM no longer the passover. The passover is fulfilled
The Lord did not hesitate to say: “This is My Body”, when He wanted to give a sign of His body” (Augustine, Against Adimant). He [Christ] committed and delivered to His disciples the figure of His Body and Blood” (Augustine, on Psalm 3). [The sacraments] bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood” (Augustine, Letter 98, From Augustine to Boniface).
St. Augustine’s Belief in the Real Presence
By David Armstrong
One of the great theological champions quoted by both Protestants and Catholics to bolster their perspective positions on the meaning of many theological issues is St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. He is best known for two of his writings, his “Confessions” and “The City of God,” and also for his devastating defense against the Pelagian heresy.
Because of this universal popularity, it is important to hear his personal testimony about the Real Presence* of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic bread and wine.
This great Church Father made many statements which have been traditionally seized upon by Protestant theologians as evidence of his adoption of either a purely symbolic or Calvinistic notion of the Lord’s Supper. Ludwig Ott, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, commented on this use:
The Eucharistic doctrine expounded by St. Augustine is interpreted in a purely spiritual way by most Protestant writers on the history of dogmas. Despite his insistence on the symbolical explanation he does not exclude the Real Presence. In association with the words of institution he concurs with the older Church tradition in expressing belief in the Real Presence ...
When in the Fathers’ writings, esp. those of St. Augustine, side by side with the clear attestations of the Real Presence, many obscure symbolically-sounding utterances are found also, the following points must be noted for the proper understanding of such passages: (1) The Early Fathers were bound by the discipline of the secret, which referred above all to the Eucharist (cf. Origen, In Lev. hom. 9, 10); (2) The absence of any heretical counter-proposition often resulted in a certain carelessness of expression, to which must be added the lack of a developed terminology to distinguish the sacramental mode of existence of Christ’s body from its natural mode of existence once on earth; (3) The Fathers were concerned to resist a grossly sensual conception of the Eucharistic Banquet and to stress the necessity of the spiritual reception in Faith and in Charity (in contradistinction to the external, merely sacramental reception); passages often refer to the symbolical character of the Eucharist as ‘the sign of unity’ (St. Augustine); this in no wise excludes the Real Presence. pp.377-8:
During my own journey to the Catholic Church, I was voraciously studying people like Dollinger, Salmon and Kung, in order to refute Catholic claims to infallibility. I remember my own use of this approach. I claimed that St. Augustine adopted a symbolic view of the Eucharist. I based this on his oft-stated notion of the sacrament as symbol or sign. But I failed to realize, however, that I was arbitrarily creating a false, logically unnecessary dichotomy between the sign and the reality of the Eucharist, for St. Augustine. When all of his remarks on the subject are taken into account, it is very difficult to argue that he didn’t accept the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For Augustine, the Eucharist, objectively speaking, is both sign and reality. There simply is no contradiction.
A cursory glance at Scripture confirms this general principle. For instance, Jesus refers to the sign of Jonah, comparing the prophet Jonah’s three days and nights in the belly of the fish to His own burial in the earth (Mt 12:38-40). In this case, both events, although described as signs, were quite real indeed. Jesus also uses the terminology of sign in connection with His Second Coming (Mt 24:30-31), which is believed by all Christians to be a literal event, and not symbolic only.
Given this introduction, consider now the following statements made by St. Augustine which strongly support the opinion that He held to the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist:
The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ. {Sermo 227; on p.377}
Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.” {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}
Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. {Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387}
[Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. {City of God, 16, 22; on p.403}
Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. {Ibid, 10, 20; on p.99}
He took flesh from the flesh of Mary
. . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring. {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}
Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. {Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31}
What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. {Ibid., 272; on p.32}
Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. {Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p.134}
The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. {Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62}
The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. {Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p.64}
Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. {Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65}
Out of hatred of Christ the crowd there shed Cyprian’s blood, but today a reverential multitude gathers to drink the Blood of Christ . . . this altar . . . whereon a Sacrifice is offered to God . . . {Sermo 310, 2; cf. City of God, 8, 27, 1; on p.65}
He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. {Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65}
The very first heresy was formulated when men said: “this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?” {Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p.66}
Thou art the Priest, Thou the Victim, Thou the Offerer, Thou the Offering. {Enarr. 1, 6 on Ps. 44; on p.66}
Take, then, and eat the Body of Christ . . . You have read that, or at least heard it read, in the Gospels, but you were unaware that the Son of
No part of this site may be reproduced without the permission of the Coming Home Network.
© 2002
The Coming Home Network International.
All Rights Reserved.
An interesting thing occurred to me.
Catholicism teaches that you only need to be water baptized once for salvation. That is merely the outward washing of the body. The water dries and it is gone. But it only needs to be done once.
It teaches that communion must be taken frequently to be effective. There are differences of opinion as to how long the host is effective in transmitting that life. Anywhere from when the host is fully dissolved to the time it takes to exit the body, to put it delicately.
Now baptism is external and not permanent. However, when someone eats something, it is digested and metabolized in the body, being used to actually build and repair the body.
So, if the elements of the host can be incorporated into the actual physical make up of the body, why does that not have the staying power that baptism, which isn’t, does?
Why is one baptism considered effective for life and one communion not, even though the elements of the host become a permanent part of the body?
Why not take communion just once and let it go at that? Why the demand for frequent partaking?
Perhaps some Catholic could address that as Jesus never gave any instructions on how often one was to take communion. Who decided? When and why?