Posted on 06/23/2015 10:06:16 AM PDT by RnMomof7
The purest form of religion on earth, says Rome, is to bow before a piece of bread and worship it. “The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life,’ ” and “is the heart and the summit of the Church’s life,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1324, 1407). And “the prayer of thanksgiving and consecration,” is “the heart and summit of the celebration” (1352). It is at the utterance of the consecration, the priest’s words, “This is My body,” and “This is the cup of My blood,” that the bread and wine are said to be “transubstantiated” into the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ:
By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity. (1413)
Because the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is said to be present under the species of bread, the Roman Catholic Church has determined that it is unnecessary to administer the Lord’s Supper to the sheep under both species—bread and wine—so members of the flock typically receive the supper under the species of bread alone: “Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace” (1390).
It is in this manner that Roman Catholicism “honoureth Me with their lips” (Matthew 15:8) by “this do[ing] in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:24), while at the same time “making the word of God of none effect” (Mark 7:13) by nullifying His Words which also say, “this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25).
Then, after having the cup withheld from them, the sheep are told to worship the bread before eating it. We understand that it offends Roman Catholics deeply that we portray them as worshiping bread, but “bread” is exactly what Jesus (John 13:18), Paul (1 Corinthians 11:26-28) and Cleopas (Luke 24:18, 35) called it even after it was consecrated. And it is this—what Jesus, Paul and Cleopas all called bread—that Roman Catholics are instructed to adore.
Roman Catholics are taught to show reverence for the bread by not calling it bread, and by bowing to it prior to eating it. Bishop William K. Weigand of Sacramento, California, for example, issued a statement some time ago calling for more reverence toward Jesus in the Eucharist, requesting that Roman Catholics “…show reverence … by making a slight bow when receiving Communion, [and] by referring to the consecrated Species as the Body of Christ or the Blood of Christ—and not ‘the bread and wine’ ” (The Wanderer, Volume 127, number 32, August 11, 1994, “Sacramento Bishop Offers Some Liturgical Reminders,” page 1).
We will continue to call it bread, for that is what it is, and we certainly see no need to bow to it, genuflect to it, or give to it the worship of latria, which is due to God alone. But that is precisely what Rome prescribes to the flock:
Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.” (1378)
The citation in paragraph 1378 is from Pope Paul VI’s Mysterium Fidei, in which he also taught,
…the Catholic Church … has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as “latria,” which may be given to God alone. As St. Augustine says: “It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation; but no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so.” (Mysterium Fidei, 55)
The latria that Rome offers to the host is the same that God reserves for Himself. The Roman Catholic Church calls this “Eucharistic Adoration.” Thus Roman Catholics are taught that “Adoration is the highest form of worship given to God,” and “the Mass is the highest form of adoration that exists.”
Just to be clear, it is the host that is the object of the latria. It is called “host” because it is derived from the latin “hostia” for “victim,” referring to the person or thing being sacrificed. Christ is alleged to be the hostia in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and it is the host that is being worshiped in the photograph, above. Just watch EWTN some evening when Mass is being said, and you’ll see the people fall on their faces before the host when the words of consecration, “This is My body,” are said. It is at that moment, we are told, that the bread is transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ—and being God, it is to be worshiped with latria. So they say.
We do not believe that transubstantiation actually occurs, but because the transubstantiation does not take place does not mean that the host is not still the object of Roman Catholic adoration. It is. The worship paid to the host is no less latria because the transubstantiation did not occur. What is worshiped in the Mass is bread, and nothing more. And since the source and summit of the Christian life is ostensibly the Mass, and the highest form of adoration humans can offer to God is that adoration that Roman Catholics offer in the Mass, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the core of the Roman Catholic religion is bread worship.
But, says the Roman Catholic, Pope Paul VI said that Augustine practiced Eucharistic adoration, and therefore, so should Protestants. Before we Protestants run off to condemn Augustine for idolatry, it would be helpful to cite him in context and give some background on his words, “no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it.” Is Augustine speaking of Eucharistic adoration? Hardly. Augustine denies Transubstantiation in the very commentary in which Paul VI quotes him.
When Augustine wrote “no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it,” he was reading what we call Psalm 99:5, “Exalt the LORD our God and worship at his footstool; he is holy.” But Augustine was reading the Latin Vulgate. In the Vulgate it is Psalm 98:5, and it reads, “exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum et adorate scabillum pedum eius quia sanctus est,” or in Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims English, “Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore his footstool, for it is holy.” In the Hebrew it is God who is worshiped, “for He is holy” (Psalms 99:5) and we bow at His footstool to worship Him. In the Vulgate, it is the footstool that is adored, and Roman Catholics are taught to worship the footstool, “for it is holy.”
Augustine struggled here “because his Latin version was at two removes from the original language, being a Latin translation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew” (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, Introduction by Michael Fiedrowicz, pg. 22, From The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Book III, vole 15, Exposition of Psalms 1-32.).
As Augustine wrestled, we can feel the tension introduced by the Latin version: “Adore His footstool? But that would be idolatry.” That’s what Augustine was trying to sort out. Why would he adore something that is not God, even if it is holy? If the earth is God’s footstool (Isaiah 66:1, Matthew 5:35), should Augustine worship the earth? Augustine tried to think his way out of the box, starting with the Latin mistranslation (“for it is holy) of the Greek translation (“for He is holy”) of the Hebrew (“He is holy”):
I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm bids me, “fall down before His footstool.” I ask, what is His footstool? And the Scripture tells me, “the earth is My footstool.” In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8)
We note that Augustine was wrestling with what appeared to be conflicting commands, and he determined that the only possible way he could “worship the earth” without committing idolatry was to worship Christ in the flesh. When he says we do not sin by worshiping but we sin by not worshiping, the object of His worship is Christ, not the Eucharist. And it is Christ Incarnate Whom we worship, for the Lamb Who was slain and sits at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:13) still bears the scars He received in the flesh (Revelation 5:6).
It almost hurts to look over Augustine’s shoulder as he thinks through this based on a mistranslation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew. But he manages to sort his way through, and concludes that “worship His footstool” must mean “worship Jesus.” We cannot approve of Augustine’s logic, but his conclusion is valid, nonetheless. But Paul VI’s use of Augustine suggests that Augustine taught that it was a sin not to worship the Eucharist. In what sense does Augustine’s commentary on Psalm 99:5 support Eucharistic Adoration?
The answer is “Not in any way,” for Augustine concludes his comments on Psalm 99:5 by soundly and explicitly rejecting the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6:53, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” The Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6:53 is that Jesus taught that we are to eat the very flesh that hung on the cross, and drink the very blood that flowed from Jesus’ side. Paul VI taught that the Eucharist is
the true body of Christ—which was born of the Virgin and which hung on the Cross as an offering for the salvation of the world—and the true blood of Christ—which flowed from His side. (Mysterium Fidei, 52)
But Augustine rejects this explicitly, and has Jesus explaining at John 6:63, “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.” (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).
It is remarkable, is it not, that Paul VI used Augustine to support Eucharistic Adoration, in a commentary where Augustine taught the opposite of what Rome and her Apologists teach about Transubstantiation?
We, of course, do not rely on Augustine for our knowledge of the Word. We must remember the context in which Jesus spoke. He had just reminded the crowd following Him that they were unbelievers, pursuing Him only to have their bellies filled with bread (John 6:26-36). Therein Jesus instructed those that would truly follow Him that “he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). Coming after Him and believing His words was the one thing those followers would not do.
Rather than pursuing Jesus to see him multiply bread, they ought to come to Him and believe in what He was saying: “Eating” is coming to Him to hear the Word of God, and “drinking” is believing in the Word of God:
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (John 6:45)
Eating as coming to Him, and drinking as believing in Him, are the metaphors Jesus establishes before He ever says “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life” (John 6:54).
Thus, Roman Catholics attempt to follow Him in the Mass, but leave the Mass only with their bellies filled, but still not finding eternal life. Because they do not believe His Words—for they certainly do not believe “this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25)—bread is all they have, and bread is all they worship. And thus it can be said of Rome, “he that believeth on me shall never thirst. … ye also have seen me, and believe not” (John 6:35-36).
Then why throw out James making it crystal clear that faith alone is foolishness?
That we're to obey our prelates?
And that the heresy of Korah leads to destruction ?
Nah, whenever a Protestant blabbers out, "context" it's because they can't defend their twisting of what Scripture clearly states or their refusal to accept what Scripture clearly states.
God incarnate made himself perfectly clear in both places with regard to His Son and His Body, which is exactly why everyone except the twelve Apostles left him, they refused to accept what Christ said. In that regard, the vast majority of Protestant folks are just like the people who walked away from Christ because they, too, refuse to accept what Christ says.
I think that’s checkmate!
The carnal mind cannot help but focus upon spiritual things with a carnal slant. "... which is exactly why everyone except the twelve Apostles left him, they refused to accept what Christ said." 'They' the devout Jews, believed that 'they' could have spiritual life of God by obeying the laws of God. What Jesus was saying to them opposed that prideful perspective and in inferring His coming death for them it contradicted what they thought He was there to do in the flesh, establish again the throne of David.
And Jesus used a metaphorical violation of the very law of God, a commandment to not eat the blood and to not commit cannibalism, as a meas to expose their false way to find salvation. That a catholic cannot see this clear use of metaphor and the disobedience tot he commandment of God to ALL THEIR GENERATIONS is symptomatic of the very same perspective in c atholicism. The spiritual meaning is contrary to their pride in self worth via their works of 'penitence' or 'righteousness' or 'charity' ... doe in the flesh not the spirit because they have yet to receive His Life, His Spirit into them by faith.
If your eternity depends on your life ...and how you have lived it..you are not "saved" you have an earned reward ..
As do many Protestant churches... one must be saved to participate.. so in effect Catholics would not be welcome ..it is a believers meal
Talking about context and applying what is said to one specific audience as if it applies to all slaps Christ Himself in the face for what He said in the verses following John 3:16, verses Protestant folks ignore. If someone is already deluded into a heresy that denies the perfection of the Holy Spirit and preaches the same thing Korah was swallowed alive into Hell for I guess slapping Christ in the face is no big deal.
That is so sad..
Catholics kneel before an idol, made with human hands..in full violation of the 1st and 2nd commandments and they think this is pleasing to Him. They talk to that idol as if it has ears to hear.. .
My FR friend.. it does not matter to God if one BELIEVES that bread is god.. The pagans believed their idols were gods too..
The body of Christ now sits at right hand of the Father to rule and reign ... He is not in a man made box needed to keep Him safe.. He is not locked into a piece of a cracker to be chewed , swallowed and then eliminated ....
catholics should not kid themselves in order to reject the Truth of what The Word of God declares. Saying magic words is a catholic schtick. A Born from Above Christian knows with the heart man believes in order to receive God’s Life in them. They that walk after the flesh to try and eat Jesus to get Him inside of them are contrasted with those thaqt walk after the Spirit. The Spirit gives Life to the spirit. The belly gives life to the flesh. The proof is at the sermon of Peter on Pentecost, and in the house of Cornelius when Peter preached there. with the heart those receiving God’s Life believed unto righteousness.
Were they saved by eating the lamb? ..
Ex 12: 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. 9 Do not eat the meat raw or boiled in water, but roast it over a fire—with the head, legs and internal organs. 10 Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. 11 This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the Lord’s Passover.
12 “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord. 13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.
21 Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb. 22 Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. None of you shall go out of the door of your house until morning. 23 When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.
Were they saved by eating the Lamb or were they saved by the protection of HIS BLOOD?
They were not told to DRINK that blood..but to seek shelter under it..and by faith they obeyed ... They were saved by the blood of that Lamb ..as is every saved person that posts here on FR...
I do not think they do
UMMMMMM Jesus and the apostles were under that that "old blood hang-up"law thing ...Jesus had to keep the WHOLE LAW PERFECTLY in order to fulfill it and to die the perfect SINLESS LAMB..
That included the entire levitical law.. and not eating blood..
ya took the words right out of my mouth
So God can sin??
Paul writes to Christians over and over telling them that they're not living like Christians and therefore not following Christ in spite of Christ Himself saying we need to take up our cross and follow him. Christ Himself said that since He cut off the original branch we should beware lest we too be cut off even after we were grafted in.
The vast majority of Protestant folks ignore all of that and have degenerated into nothing more than Wicca with a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge," while saying "Jesus Christ" but teaching Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Claiming to be led by the same Holy Spirit Protestant doctrine, all Protestant and Protestant derived doctrine, clearly states is imperfect and inept is no different than claiming to be led by whichever spirit is hanging from a nearby tree.
People who have, for example, changed their beliefs and interpretation of Scripture to the degree that they accept the murder of infants in the womb as long as it's called "contraception" are people who are under a strong, diabolical, delusion, not people understand Scripture and who are following Christ.
I wish Catholics would really read the scripture proof texts their church uses ..
The "bread of life' discourse ended at John 6:61...
Jesus went on with His teaching about salvation
Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
They did not like hearing that salvation had to be given them and much like the manna in the desert, it was totally a gift of the Father. They could not do anything on their own to earn it, they only had access to it by faith ( remember the Jews could only gather enough manna for the one days meals, and for 2 days on the day before the sabbath, they had to have faith in God to provide what was necessary for their life) . The idea that salvation was all of God and not found in law keeping was blasphemy to the law oriented Jews that felt their salvation was based on their will, their law keeping etc
How do we know that the bread was a metaphor ??
What did your "first pope " say??
Did he ask for some of that bread ???
John 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him,“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Peter did not seek after that "bread" , he understood the metaphor.. He wanted to hear the WORDS of eternal life
When James spoke of being able to know someone has 'faith that saves' he focused attention on the works, because IF the Life of God is in a man, the character of God will show forth. James was not teaching that to have salvation you must do works to earn it. He was explaining that IF you have it you will see the works as evidence. Folks turn the perspective on its head. James was teaching folks how to know if someone had saving Faith, as he said 'I'll show you my faith (that saving faith which God sees in the inward parts and sends His Spirit into them because of it) by my works.' He never said I'll get salvation by my works.
Exactly where did Augustine say that?
From that set of assertions regarding a personal interpretation of what "works" means and knowing that Protestantism claims that each individual can read the mind of God and claim that when God Himself said something He didn't mean exactly what He said, it follows that Paul wasn't right when he said :
Romans 11:21 For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee.
So, now along with denying the power of the Holy Spirit, reading the mind of God, and claiming the individual has the right to ignore verses that don't fit into their personal preferences, we now have clear evidence that Protestantism by definition has to disagree with Paul. At least when they want to disagree with Paul.
How many catholics run to the priest....say a few words...then are off on their way?
Can you keep things in context when reading the Word??
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.