Catholic Evangelization and the Role of the “Eucharist” in This End-Time Deception

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=2706 ^ | September 25th, 2013 | Roger Oakland

[BlueDragon]

Obviously, you missed the point.

[goodwithagun]

Were you being sarcastic? If so my appologies. I’m off my game lately.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***In the year 2000, we learned that a mantra-style meditation coupled with a mystical spirituality had been introduced to the evangelical,***

I remember reading back in the late 1960s of some Liberal seminary students being given LSD while reading the Bible to “enhance” their “understanding” of the Bible.

I don’t think it worked to enhance it as I see what the Lib churches have become.

[Jvette]

No where in any of the accounts of the Last Supper does it say that Jesus ate or drank what He gave the Apostles.

[al_c]

Catholics are not Christians...sorry to burst your bubble.

By what definition do you make such an absurd claim?

[narses]

“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]

[M Kehoe]

Catholics are not Christians...sorry to burst your bubble.

What?

5.56mm

[BlueDragon]

I guess I was being sarcastic.

As far as that "insult them-- but pray for them" biz goes, it can be a two-way street (more than one party or individual doing the same or similar enough) leaving either or both guilty of some hypocrisy.

Since there is that element to it, you were in part correct in saying the point was moot, but in my view, only half-way to "moot", since being in disagreement or having taken offense at what another says, does not justify going for the "getting personal" route, then saying "oh, but I.." (you know, me, the guy who just insulted you, but is somehow super-spiritual and "righteous" nonetheless and God will really really listen to me no matter how much a hypocrite I may be-- yeah, that guy) "...will be praying for you" (isn't that special?). Lot's of sarcasm in that last, but none of it aimed at you personally...

So as far as that goes, it should be I that apologizes to you. I do thank you kindly for your consideration.

As to the point being fully moot however, most of what I did was just return the choice of words to see how well they fit, and if they were comfortable, doing so for as much for blandly generic-like demonstration of the principles involved hoping to get the message across -- maybe don't do it or say it *quite* like that, rather than offering my comment as more personalized critique or judgement. Discussing the message, and the form of it, rather than the messenger...

If it were to be hard and fast irrevocable judgment (rather than just instructional) then there is enough rope laying around to hang most of us, myself included.

[mlizzy]

Another poignant use of Perpetual Adoration is as perhaps the premiere alternative to the mass media's monopoly of our time and manipulation of our minds, especially through television and personal computers. When exploring this subject on his popular EWTN show, Life on the Rock, host Jeff Cavins talked about how many people (Catholics included) sit in front of a TV and/or computer several hours a day. First, the proliferation of stations due to cable and satellite dishes increases our television choices making it harder to turn the set off. Secondly, the use of remote control allows us to watch (if not comprehend) several shows at one time. Our mind is literally flooded with images until the shows practically overwhelm our senses and our ability to find any goodness or truth or beauty in what we are viewing. Similarly, browsing endless websites, entering random chat rooms, or spending hours on computer games can eventually lead us to deny the necessity to bear witness in the real world, if not the belief of His Real Presence in it.

By contrast, the eyes of a soul who often looks upon the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament see not random images, but a single Light. Unlike television viewing, where the TV dominates the exchange, in Eucharistic Adoration there is constant communication, the Lord listening as the soul speaks, then the soul listening as the Lord responds. And while many agnostic computer experts dream of capturing time and space by literally plugging us (complete with tiny microchips in our foreheads) into the "Net," Fr. Hardon in his article "Prayer Before the Blessed Sacrament," explains that "The prayer before the Eucharist believes that time is erased by the miracle of the Real Presence, and so is distance and space." Computer technology may lead you to believe that through the information highway man can someday conquer the world, but faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection, strengthened by belief in the Real Presence convinces us that Christ already has. --Tom O'Toole

Tom intereviewed Frs. Fanelli and Lane in the late 90s, and whereby Fr. Fanelli started up the first Adoration Chapel in Cook County, Chicago, in 1986, there are now over 200. I've spent many hours in Adoration throughout the years, myself, and if I'm not filled with the Holy Spirit while there, I don't know what it is that makes me more tolerant and patient (after I leave), if only for a few hours or days. In other words, there's a discernible difference [a peace] in one's attitude after spending time with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. It's undeniable, and can only be experienced (or understood) by one who attends, with the belief that Christ is Truly present. http://www.therealpresence.org/chap_fr.htm

[Springfield Reformer]

Miracles don't require precedent

In an ontological sense, yes they do. Certainly God can do as He pleases and we should expect to be surprised by His miracles. But we know we have seen a miracle why? Because it falls within the precedent of what a miracle *is.* All of the miracles in Scripture, from front to back, that involve God's intervention in the material world, are discernible to the observers by physical inspection. The alleged Eucharistic miracle would be the sole exception.

So one must ask, why do miracles occur at all? Why does God do them? Because they testify of Him. They show His power. They are, in the final analysis, a form of communication, certifying to us that God is real, and is the absolute sovereign ruler of all things, and is intimately concerned with us personally. A supposed miracle that does none of these things fails in its central reason for being. It falls short of what all other true miracles have been.

Now some may object that some miracles are spiritual in nature, and I would agree, taking for example the miracle of being born again by an act of God, being carried from spiritual death to spiritual life. But even those miracles change the life of the recipient in obvious, discernible ways. The demoniac encounters Jesus and goes from being a chain-breaking wild man to a calm and thoughtful disciple of Christ. This change was so discernible it frightened the community into asking Jesus to leave. They were terrified of such obvious, visible power.

So again, even the so-called purely spiritual miracles are of the same precedent. They testify in some discernible way to the power of God, as a witness of God to the people of God, and even to the unbelieving.

Either way then, whether physically or spiritually, the alleged transubstantiation event fails the definition of what a miracle is. Rather, as it appears from it's very late appearance, transubstantiation seems more akin to a telling the emperor he has clothes, only he cannot discern them in any way, so he must trust the tailor at all costs, even if he must defy his own God-given sensory apparatus in the process. By which the tailor gains spiritual power over the poor naked emperor.

This is all such a far cry from the simplicity of the Gospel, which Christ said was accessible to even a child, and I would dare say I know of no children who could at all grasp Aquinas' inversion of substance and accidence to arrive at transubstantiation (let alone most adult readers here), but I can name you several children who can grasp what it means that they were sinners for whom Jesus died, and who have no trouble understanding His love for them through a regular and reverent remembrance of His sacrifice for them.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Communion with both the Consecrated Host and the Consecrated Wine -- for the laity --- was one of the new practices introduced by the Second Vatican Council. Prior to that, Communion was always distributed to the laity via the Consecrated Hosts alone, partly because of fear of spillage and desecration of the Blood of the Lord.

I think that sometimes Communion is still given "in one kind," as they say, under certain conditions: celiac disease, esophageal cancer (communicant can't swallow/digest the wheat Host); alcoholism (communicant wishes to avoid Consecrated Wine); or sometimes just the Sacred Host if there are large crowds e.g. at a World Youth Day with a couple million people.

Latin Masses also do not offer the Chalice to the laity for communion,

Was the Mass you attended in Latin?

[Iscool]

After mass some of Christ's real presence - His Body and Blood - is reserved in a tabernacle. This can be found at the back of the Church or in a special side chapel. There will be a lit candle nearby to indicate His presence.

So you keep Jesus in the Catholic churches...And apparently Jesus can't leave your churches, either because he is restrained, or he just doesn't want to leave...

One must go to a Catholic church to experience Jesus...

Thank God real Christians have the words of God to guide us and keep us from falling into the trap that is the Catholic religion...

And you have to have a light on to let people know that Jesus is in...Oh brother!!! A religion built on so many lies...

Mat_18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Can someone imagine, a couple of Christians praying together out on someone's front porch with a candle burning nearby??? Well it wouldn't happen since Jesus can't leave the Catholic church...

[Iscool]

What are all the links for??? You can’t just summarize what they say???

[Iscool]

Haven’t you got anything to do healthier than attacking fellow Christians?

How do you consider us fellow Christians when we don't eat Jesus??? And we wouldn't if we could...

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Some threads and posters deserve no response or bumps whatsoever.

Christianity was anonymous in its understanding of the Real Presence until the Protestant Revolt. If Christianity was wrong prior to the 1500s in understanding the Real Presence, then Christ lied when He promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church to all Truth and protect His Church from all error, and all Christians believe in vain.

No, this denial of the Real Presence and posts that repeat it are simply demonic. Those posting them deserve our pity and our prayers.

[daniel1212]

It's completely in keeping with the central miracle of Jesus' life, the Incarnation, in which a peasant carpenter from an obscure Roman province is -- according to Christian belief -- supposed to be Eternal God incarnate ... contrary, as you say, to sensory experiences.

What i said was the substance of bread and wine is said to be "really" changed, though the sensory aspects of the earthly elements remain the same, which is contrary to the miracles which the Lord and His followers did. For in miracles in which a physical change took place then it was manifest, so that water that became wine tasted like wine, and those who were healed actually were changed, and not being different persons with no actual or manifest changes.

In contrast to the claims for transubstantiation, God was not transubstantiated, but incarnated, with the body God the Father had prepared for Him, (Heb. 10:3) so that He "took on him the seed of Abraham," " and was made in the likeness of men," (Phil. 2:7, but by the body of someone else being transubstantiated into God.

While both the incarnation of the Lord and in regeneration then there is a spiritual reality that physically is not evident, except in its expressions, this is not the same as transubstantiation, in which physical elements are said to undergo a actual change of substance so that they are actually said to be something else, and your own church does not see the incarnation as the same as transubstantiation.

See the link on the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano posted above.

If this is true, rather than being an artifact of medieval hucksterism, then we can examine any consecrated wafer and find the same correct?

And if so one would think that the Vatican would have DNA testing carried out on the tissue to trace the genetic origins of the person, and thus silence skeptics and bloester RC faith, rather than use some obscure poorly documented Italian medieval story.

Be back later.

[mlizzy]

If this is true, rather than being an artifact of medieval hucksterism, then we can examine any consecrated wafer and find the same correct?

Is it fitting that Christ's Body and Blood become present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine?

Yes, for this way of being present corresponds perfectly to the sacramental celebration of the Eucharist. Jesus Christ gives himself to us in a form that employs the symbolism inherent in eating bread and drinking wine. Furthermore, being present under the appearances of bread and wine, Christ gives himself to us in a form that is appropriate for human eating and drinking. Also, this kind of presence corresponds to the virtue of faith, for the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be detected or discerned by any way other than faith. That is why St. Bonaventure affirmed: "There is no difficulty over Christ's being present in the sacrament as in a sign; the great difficulty is in the fact that He is really in the sacrament, as He is in heaven. And so believing this is especially meritorious" (In IV Sent., dist. X, P. I, art. un., qu. I). On the authority of God who reveals himself to us, by faith we believe that which cannot be grasped by our human faculties (cf. Catechism, no. 1381).

Are the consecrated bread and wine "merely symbols"?

In everyday language, we call a "symbol" something that points beyond itself to something else, often to several other realities at once. The transformed bread and wine that are the Body and Blood of Christ are not merely symbols because they truly are the Body and Blood of Christ. As St. John Damascene wrote: "The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of Christ—By no means!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body'; not ‘a foreshadowing of my body' but ‘my body,' and not ‘a foreshadowing of my blood' but ‘my blood'" (The Orthodox Faith, IV [PG 94, 1148-49]).

At the same time, however, it is important to recognize that the Body and Blood of Christ come to us in the Eucharist in a sacramental form. In other words, Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine, not in his own proper form. We cannot presume to know all the reasons behind God's actions. God uses, however, the symbolism inherent in the eating of bread and the drinking of wine at the natural level to illuminate the meaning of what is being accomplished in the Eucharist through Jesus Christ.

There are various ways in which the symbolism of eating bread and drinking wine discloses the meaning of the Eucharist. For example, just as natural food gives nourishment to the body, so the eucharistic food gives spiritual nourishment. Furthermore, the sharing of an ordinary meal establishes a certain communion among the people who share it; in the Eucharist, the People of God share a meal that brings them into communion not only with each other but with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Similarly, as St. Paul tells us, the single loaf that is shared among many during the eucharistic meal is an indication of the unity of those who have been called together by the Holy Spirit as one body, the Body of Christ (1 Cor 10:17). To take another example, the individual grains of wheat and individual grapes have to be harvested and to undergo a process of grinding or crushing before they are unified as bread and as wine. Because of this, bread and wine point to both the union of the many that takes place in the Body of Christ and the suffering undergone by Christ, a suffering that must also be embraced by his disciples. Much more could be said about the many ways in which the eating of bread and drinking of wine symbolize what God does for us through Christ, since symbols carry multiple meanings and connotations. --http://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus/eucharist.php

Eucharistic Miracles

[Iscool]

It is interesting to read THIS PAGE to learn how Focus on the Family, John MacArthur and Charles Stanley have all gone off the rails.

Perhaps posting of some of that might stimulate some interesting discussion. The current thread will surely be the same old, same old that has been gone over ad nauseum, ad infinitum

Nah...They haven't gone off the rails...John MacArthur quoted a true, accurate statement from a fella who happened to have differing views about another topic over 20 years ago...

And Charles Stanley is as main stream non-New Age as they get...

What it amounts to is these relatively famous people quoted statements or phrases by people who had other beliefs as well...It would be like me quoting something Obama said that had nothing to do with why I dislike the guy...

For example, if Obama said 'another recession is heading this way', I could quote that without people thinking I supported Obama...

And these famous preachers have many staff people who handle most everthing and likely were not even aware of the full beliefs of those they quoted...

It however may be a fun story for you to post...

[Iscool]

But, discovering that Charles Stanley is going “emergent / mystical” - Now THERE’S something completely different.

Aww c'mon...You searched the site high and low to find something negative about the source but you couldn't find it...So now you resort to THAT???

[vladimir998]

“...I noticed they were only distributing the host to communicants, without offering the cup to drink from as well. When did that become practice?”

It was first commonly shared up until the High Middle Ages. Because of cost, worries about spilling the cup, and heretical groups like the Hussites, the practice ceased in the Late Middle Ages. It was revived experimentally in the 1950s in Europe if I am not mistaken. It became common in the U.S. in the 1970s with the permission of the Vatican (because such a practice is not explicitly seen in the rubrics of the Mass). That permission was believed by some to have ended in 2010. One diocese - Phoenix - tried to restrict the sharing of the cup (as would have been proper since the permission was believed to have expired), but the bishop (a good bishop, Bishop Olmstead) has apparently waffled on that because of the outcry from Mass goers: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/11/11/20111111phoenix-bishop-reverses-ruling-wine-communion.html Apparently the permission was about a related matter and not the actual sharing of the cup. The sharing of the cup can only happen at the “new” liturgies: i.e. the new Mass since Vatican II and the Anglican Use Mass. It CAN NEVER happen at the old Latin Mass from before Vatican II.