Posted on 05/22/2015 9:05:44 AM PDT by RnMomof7
When sharing with catholics the wonderful news about the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross for the sins of the world, one of the most tragic and miserable deceptions that many of them have blindly bought into is their worship and idolization of the eucharist.
Breaking bread is something that all Bible believers cherish and take very seriously, especially after reading Paul's solemn admonition not to come to the Lord's table with any unconfessed sin in our hearts (1 Cor. 11:23-34). However, communion is only for those of us that have already been saved from all of our past, present, and future sins; and as such we do so in gratitude for and remembrance of the terrible price that Christ paid for us in dying for our sins to save us from the wrath of God, not in order to 'be saved' or to 'stay saved.'
For catholics, however, it is something they must do in the 'hope' of being saved and staying saved. So, for them it's rather simple: no priest, no mass. No mass, no salvation! And it's also something that they must continue to do right up until they die, otherwise all the 'good' that they've done in their lives will be wiped away upon death. Without meaning to sound crude, it's a bit like a 'pay-as-you-go' situation, a bit like buying 'credit' for their phone in order to use it. Translated, this means that they have to keep going to mass in order to 'stay saved.'
In John 6, which I covered point by point in another article, Jesus makes it very clear that when a person eats His flesh and drinks His blood, they have (present tense) everlasting life.
"Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
The above verse proves that eating the Lord's body means one already has everlasting life (present tense) and affirms that this is no mere reference to sitting down and breaking bread each week (I’ll have more to say on this later).
One writer offered the following:
"In ancient ritual blood sacrifices (in pagan religions) the worshipper must consume the blood of the victim as a sacrifice. This idea was incorporated in such manner that now the communing believer takes the bread (the body of Christ) into his own flesh in this the supreme and highest moment of Christian worship. This becomes the central mystery of the Christians’ faith and practice eating the body of Christ."
Up until the 12th century, many popes and church councils had differing views as to the necessity of the mass. For example, Gregory I placed an anathema and automatic excommunication on anyone who didn't participate in this unbiblical and non-bloody sacrifice. Yet Innocent III said that all those who taught that it was necessary and essential to attend mass would be excommunicated. (Also, some church "fathers," like the above popes, believed in the eucharist being literal, divine and essential to salvation, while others considered it only to be symbolic, and no more than that.)
Catholics believe their priests have magical powers to change a wafer and wine (not unleavened bread and fruit juice, both being Scriptural) into the literal body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ before 'crucifying' Him afresh, and the Scripture that is commonly misused and misunderstood to 'affirm' this is John 6:51-63:
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
This kind of Biblical interpretation is called letterism. The concept is quite simple: every passage in the Bible (if one is not careful) ends up being interpreted literally, resulting in many problems, if this is taken to the extreme.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) have also fallen prey to this theological blunder!
For example, in the above piece of Scripture, the Jewish Messiah is speaking to His Jewish disciples and others present (never forget the historical and religious context) in their Jewish synagogue, and He tells them:
"Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath (present tense) eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
According to catholic teachings, no catholic is entitled to have any assurance of salvation, much the same way that Muslims don't either have any assurance that their sins are forgiven. Should they die at any moment, their religion offers them no guarantee that they will go straight to be with the Lord, even though the above text is crystal clear that salvation is eternal and given to those that eat His flesh and drink His blood. Once again, Rome is proven to be teaching falsehoods on matters of one's eternal and unconditional salvation.
May I also take a moment to remind the reader that Jewish culture forbade the drinking of blood (animal or human) before the law, during the law, and after the law (Lev. 17:11-14.) So, obviously, Jesus would not teach against His own law while the Jews were still living under the Jewish law (Acts 15:28-29).
Some years after this event, Peter would say: "I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean" (Acts 10:14). Yet, according to Rome, he had done this but didn't know what he was talking about!
As catholic doctrine desperately needs to affirm John 6 as being literal, I find it rather odd that other verses, such as Matt. 5:29 "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee," are not interpreted literally, but only metaphorically. (One church leader, Origen, did foolishly mutilate himself, when reading this Scripture.)
So, how should Matt. 5:29 be correctly understood and interpreted? Jesus is warning His Jewish audience about the drastic consequences of unrepentant sin (Rom. 12:1 should be cross-referenced here). Correctly, nobody within catholicism or Biblical Christianity would take this verse to be literal but metaphorical, which of course is the only correct way to exegete it.
And what about John 6:54? Well, Scripture with Scripture, and we read how some of the unbelieving Jews, when hearing about eating and drinking Christ's body, later complained (vs. 61). This is reminiscent of what happened with Moses and his followers, when they were still wandering in the wilderness (Ex. 16:2). Also from the same chapter, we read about the "Bread of Heaven," which God gave as a test to Israel to see who would obey His laws or not.
John 6 comes to its natural completion, with the false disciples departing from Jesus, even though He made it clear in vs. 63 that His words weren't literal. They had already made up their minds, however, and "walked no more with Him," and with this, Christ allowed them to depart permanently (John 6:66; 1 John 2:19).
So then how should one understand what Jesus means when He says they must eat Him and drink Him? The most sensible and logical conclusion for any honest and open-minded person to come to would be to understand this as being metaphorical. Therefore, the Lord was underscoring the fact that He would soon die and taught His followers that they would need to partake of this spiritual memorial, i.e., believe in Him and on Him, if they wanted to be saved (John 1:12).
Two other things should be said about the eucharist:
1) If receiving it (pre-Vatican II) warrants eternal life, then grace through faith alone is thrown out and works for salvation is taught alongside it, something that the cults believe. Please also remember that communion hadn't yet been officially instituted by Christ.
2) Today's catholic church (post-Vatican II) no longer holds to the urgent need for catholics to take communion in order to be saved; for they state that Muslims and Jews can be saved without any faith or repentance in Christ.
No sane person would take a literal interpretation of other Scriptures such as "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst" (John 4:14); "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever" (John 6:51); "I am the door" (John 10:7), and finally, "He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler" (Ps. 91:4). This is known as letterism. Rather, these verses are understood figuratively, based on the loving understanding that God does and will look after His own and will feed those that believe in Him literally and spiritually.
Thus, redeemed sinners will never thirst again if they feed on Him and His word daily. And we know that God is not a bird (Ps. 91:4), but is a Spirit (John 4:24) and is also invisible (Col. 1:15).
Later in the Bible we read how Paul ridiculed his pagan audience in Acts 17:25, when he totally dismantled their nonsensical belief:
"Neither is [God] worshipped with men's hands [out goes transubstantiation], as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."
One should also read Acts 19:26-27 where Paul once again reiterates this position, and what follows from his pagan crowd? Much persecution and violence. Why? Because they, like Rome, know, that Paul's rebuke of their foolish notion of creating gods, i.e., statues, etc, etc, is very bad for business (like church membership and attendance is for Rome). How times never change!
Lastly, on this note, 1 Cor. 8:8 is the final clincher that eating food (the wafer miraculously becoming 'the body of Christ') doesn't save sinners:
"But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse."
Each of these verses totally obliterates the warped view of the catholic eucharist being a Biblical doctrine, let alone being able to save lost, ignorant sinners!
May I say the reason why I have titled this article, "The blasphemy of the mass" is not only in remembrance of the following victim of this cruel and heretical belief of a wafer being transformed into the literal body of the Lord Jesus, but because the church of Rome have created yet another idol and stumbling block to catholics all over the world, something God detests and will judge them severely for.
Before I move on, I wish to share with the reader, the following and most profound statement made by an Anne Askew, whilst been tortured to death for Christ by a catholic bishop, for failing to submit to the mass:
"I have read that God made man, but that man can make God, I have never read."
(Anne was 25 years old when she was tortured and later taken out and burnt alive!)
One writer had the following to say about the madness of how Rome deals with a wafer:
"If a Catholic gets the wafer (not the Biblical unleavened bread) stuck in his false tooth, he is to scrap "Jesus" out of his mouth with a knife or finger, dip Him in water and drink Him...If a person vomits up the wafer, they must pick up their vomit."
One last example of this type of wooden and woolly interpretation would be when the Mormons take 1 Cor. 15:29 literally:
"If the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"
After reading this passage, the founder of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith, (who was also a freemason and witch) started baptising dead people. This form of exegesis is sheer madness, for when did a dead unrepentant person ever benefit from being baptised after they died?
(The Mormons have been known to baptise dead people at random, regardless of their religious backgrounds, and then add their names to their own private computer, which incidentally has billions of names of people from around the whole world and dating back many years in their many underground secret tunnels in Utah).
1 Cor. 15:29 simply means that if Christ had not died and then been raised from the dead, our baptism and faith in Him would be totally in vain.
For non-catholics, the whole concept of what the mass is was clearly defined and explained by an archbishop, John F. Whealon:
"Sacrifice is the very essence of religion. And it is only through sacrifice that union with the Creator can be perfectly acquired. It was through sacrifice that Christ Himself was able to achieve this for man. It is only through the perpetuation [continuing] of that sacrifice that this union may be maintained."
This part of Scripture is partially true, apart from the perpetual aspect. And then Whealon goes on to say:
"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. Jesus then, is the priest, the offerer of the sacrifice. But Christ was not only the priest of this sacrifice (of the cross), He was also the victim, the very object itself of this sacrifice. 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."
(Note: The mass is performed around 200,000 times a day, all around the globe, meaning Jesus, according to catholic belief, is continually being 'summoned' down from Heaven like a bellboy, to be repeatedly 'sacrificed' afresh for the sins of catholics. 'Salvation' at best is only temporary and most certainly 'conditional', and as such, catholics are constantly in limbo and fear of dying outside their so-called 'state of grace.')
One of the greatest blessings for people that had been trapped in organized religion was the protestant reformation of the 16th century. Much to their credit, the reformers re-discovered how sinners are saved solely and exclusively by their faith alone in the shed blood of Christ.
By Christ's precious and divine blood, anybody who believes on Him and in His substitutionary death on the cross for their sins can be totally forgiven and pardoned, regardless of anything they do to 'help' them earn 'favour' with God!
Of course, such an amazing re-affirmation of God's incredible grace was met with absolute fury from the priests of Rome because, for them, only they could act as little 'mediators' between God and man. To cut them out of the equation meant the end of livelihoods and strongholds over members of their religion.
So, Rome launched a counter-reformation movement, and one of the first things they did was to convene in Trent, northern Italy, where they issued over 100 curses on worldwide non-catholics, which in essence meant eternal Hell fire upon death!
The council of Trent and its many curses, which is still binding on non-catholics to this present day, had the following to say to anyone who didn't agree with them on this:
"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 let him be accursed."
Well, before I respond to the curses promised by Rome, may I remind the reader of one very important point: if the mass is a continuation of the work of Calvary, than catholicism has a rather difficult problem. For the Bible says, "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22).
The mass is a non-bloody sacrifice. The sacrifices in the Jewish temple were bloody. Jesus' death was bloody. The mass is not. Therefore according to Biblical theology, the mass is totally nullified, and subsequently worthless!
Now as far as the 100+ curses, which have so 'lovingly' been placed on all non-catholics are concerned, all I would say is this: I shall return such curses back to Rome via FedEx! Because as far as I am concerned, the mass is not needed at all. For we read the following in the book of Hebrews:
"But this man [Jesus], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 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. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore" (Heb. 7:24-28).
"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb. 9:12).
This monumental Scripture, which the apostle Paul also affirmed in his epistle to the Romans (6:10), has a most beautiful connotation to it. Such verses would echo the words of the Lord as He hung naked on Calvary's cross, "It is finished" (John 19:30).
And before I move on, please permit me to share what a real curse is, when concerning false teachers and their teachings, from a true servant of God:
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9).
So, it appears the Rome has actually cursed themselves, when seeking to curse true Bible believers!
To the observant student of Scripture, none of the above verses state that works of any kind are necessary for salvation; it's simply by one's faith alone in Christ alone!
So, what further need do we have to emphasise that the sacrificial aspect of the catholic mass is a farce and blasphemy in the eyes of God. Jesus has paid the price for the sin of the world (John 1:29), and no church, group, priest, vicar, guru, prophet, or god has the right or even the audacity to say or teach otherwise.
Well, gee, it’s like this: in 1302 A.D. the Catholic Church AND the Greek Church in schism (salvation in one still recognized by the other) were the Christian church.
The Church had by then experienced a number of heretical breakaways. Pope Boniface invalidated them with his statement.
BTW, there were no Protestants then.
I'm sorry, but that is simply not Catholic doctrine. In fact, you are risking eternal damnation by spouting heresy.
So, “Ex Cathedra” is a personal opinion?
Let me ask you this: When a pope IS speaking "Ex Cathedra," where does that come from? Himself?
The concept itself infers a divided mind. That he cannot speak truth any other time, other than "on the Seat of Peter," is what this teaching is all about.
Correct interpretation of v 63:
“Only the Spirit can accomplish the miracle of the Eucharist, and only the Spirit can empower us to believe the miracle.”
Given the Eucharist was believed from the very beginging of the Church, I will run with that interpretation.
Speaking of “letterism” kinda funny how taking the Creation story in Genesis literally results in many problems when compared to science.
Then I should tell our Father Pastor at my Catholic Church that he is wrong thinking believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, saves a person, gives a person eternal life.
He has been a Priest for many years. Before becoming a Priest, he was a sniper in our military. When hunting season comes around, he's out there with the guys hunting.
There is always a church barbecue during hunting season, and he makes barbecue if he has hunting success, which he always does. He says he has a new barbecue grill for this year.
As with every other such thread, I will read the comments with interest - some for the pertinent comments, some for the entertainment alone.
This time, I will be playing a new game I'll call: "Transubstantiation BINGO"
Here are the words that will "fill the card":
"Body" - "Vine" - "Door" - "Finished" - "Priest" - "Sponge" - "Catechism" - "Presence" - "Luther" - "Tradition" - "Eucharist" - "Magisterium" - "Interpretation" - "Literal" - and of course "Mary"
Also, I give a "FREE" space in the middle of the card for the inevitable list of prepared, unrelated links.
What I find puzzling is that many Catholics concede that Protestant Christians CAN be saved and are genuine Christians, while being without that core teaching of the absolute necessity of receiving the Eucharist for salvation.
I’d like a lurking Catholic to explain this. Are these ecumenical Catholics just being devious, or do they not believe Catholic doctrine?
You might want to do some research on exactly what Catholic doctrine is regarding those Christians who are not Catholic but have been justified by faith in Baptism. It may be different than what you think.
Evangelicals don’t passionately insist they are literally covered, right now, with real actual blood (lamb or not). Ever.
Catholics, time & again, insist that what they’re consuming transubstantiates into REAL ACTUAL BLOOD OF CHRIST HIMSELF. They’ll go so far as insist that the Eucharist is, in literal absolute factual physical truth, a time-and-space transcending extension of the actual crucifixion and death of Christ, that they are in every sense participating in sacrificing Him (not “receiving the sacrifice”, but no less than those actually killing Him). I’ve checked out the actual teachings, which say exactly that...at least until one points out the total preposterousness of the notion, at which point it’s totally spiritual/symbolic (and therefore I’m being specious)...and the two completely incompatible notions are held simultaneously as though there is absolutely no conflict and not even the appearance thereof. Surely looks like a conspiracy of sophistries to me.
Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
We have. If you’re not under the auspices of the Catholic Church in its physical form, yer toast. (...at least until you’ve gone thru the Purgatory-brand Spiritual Washing Machine for a few thousand years, at which point everybody gets cleaned up and into Heaven without any involvement of Christ or His church. Except really bad people, ‘cuz they’re evil, unlike the rest of us slightly-stained folk.)
Please do tell him he is wrong. He spouting the heresy called Sole Fide “Faith Alone”
Went from denouncing heresy to a new barbecue grill in 6 short sentences. Impressive!
“The Eucharist at every mass is acknowledging the sacrifice Christ made for us.”
There’s quite a difference between acknowledging what was done (Protestant doctrine), vs insisting Mass is in fact a literal physical participation in the actual sacrifice, right down to drinking actual transubstantiated literal blood (Catholic doctrine).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.