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).
Contrary to Scripture.
Surprised?
I wouldn’t expect so.
Parsing to create a distinction without a difference. Mumbo jumbo, more magic from the priests administering the mystery religion instead of Christianity. Nicolaitanized in this modern catholic church rule.
It isn't even close.
According your catechism, the sacrifice of the mass is an unbloody one, which is worthless killing, because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Jesus shed His blood. And CCC says it's bloodless.
Christ died on a cross, not an altar.
Jesus gave Himself, no priest offered Him up to God as a sacrifice for our sins.
Jesus said *It is finished*, while the RCC says it isn't finished but is ongoing.
Nope, not the same death at all.
Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-17)
While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.” He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.” Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid [his] hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-6)
They had faith but had yet to receive the Holy Spirit.
Well, one who has faith has the Holy Spirit, as one is impossible without the other. See e.g. 1 Cor. 12:3. And one who has been baptized receives the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38, John 3:5.
Now I don’t speak Greek, so I rely on those who do. And I’ll try to relay my understanding as best I can. The word here for “falling upon” them is epipipto, which literally means to fall down or to crash into. It’s a word that’s only used a couple of times in the entire New Testament. This is NOT the same word that Luke uses to indicate receiving the Holy Spirit in other places in the Bible, e.g., with Baptism/coming to faith (including Acts 2). So Luke’s use of a different word indicates something different than “just” the “normal” receiving the Holy Spirit is happening here.
The context is always in connection with 1) the laying on of hands, and 2) in a brand new Christian community. (e.g., Samaria, Cornelius’s house...) What do you need in a new Christian community, especially one founded by missionaries (like Stephen)? You’ll need pastors for the new church there. And notice only the apostles/pastors create the new pastors (Stephen didn’t). And the laying on of hands has always been for the ordaining of new pastors.
So each time this occurs, it’s the ordination of new pastors for the new Christian communities, whereby these communities receive the Holy Spirit in this new way that they hadn’t before.
Thus endeth my understanding 8-) Is it right? It makes sense, anyway.
from the catechism.....sounds like a resacrifice tome.
I would only digress slightly, by saying the carnal, unregenerate mind cannot focus on anything that is spiritual at all, with any kind of slant. Maybe that is what you meant? 😇
Yeah, the carnal mind cannot see the things of the spirit, so when Jesus would give ‘them’ a metaphor, use a parable, it was a pretty good bet they wouldn’t really get it. Even the disciples had to ask over and over for clarification for their minds, even after spending three years in His Presence were not spiritually minded ... YET. I enjoyed the one where Jesus tells them to beware the leaven of the Pharisees, and they immediately murmured among themselves that He was referring to their forgetting to bring along bread to eat. They were just coming from Him feeding thousadns with a few little loaves! ... And of course Passover was just ahead, when unleavened bread would be served.
..God is not a God of confusion..(1 Corth 14) He has set laws in place for His people for order and peace...
A loving Father does not change his rules day to day ..leading to confusion and disorder.. ...
"Malachi 3: 6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Numbers 23:19 God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
James 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
If one depends on their life, to determine whether they are in or out, at death, they will get a rude awakening of Biblical proportions. If people want to trust in that kind of a plan of salvation, that's on them, but I won't do it. 😂😇
They do not understand ..(Mark 8:18)
If you are going to reference the Catechism of the Catholic Church then give a complete reference:
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."N.B. the line: "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice." The shedding of the Blood of this one sacrifice that is made present at the Mass took place on the Cross.
Jesus said *It is finished*, while the RCC says it isn't finished but is ongoing.
What was finished was the institution of the new Passover at which he also gave the instruction "do this in memory of me."
But God did indeed change the law several times:
1)The covenant with Noah,
2) the covenant with Abraham,
3) the covenant with Moses,
4) the covenant with David, and
5) the covenant prophesized in Jeremiah and fulfilled in Jesus.
The New Testament is clear that the requirements of circumcision of the Abrahamic covenant and the Temple sacrifices and food restrictions of the Mosaic covenant are no longer in effect. God does change his law.
How again is this not a re-sacrifice??
See post #172.
Learn the lesson of the 300 into whom the Holy Spirit entered at Pentecost. Learn the lesson of the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius into whom the Holy Spirit entered even before Peter finished preaching, because it is by faith, the belief that Jesus is Savior and Lord, that Justification comes to the unrighteous. There is no righteous in the man or woman who has not the Life of God in them. But God's Grace offers His Life to immediately be yours, if you will but believe and walk in His Spirit.
What was finished was not a new Passover, for the 'Old Passover' was not gone away. what was finished was a new Covenant relationship between Man and God, hallmarked by God's righteousness available because Jesus paid the penalty we owe. Jesus fulfilled the Times of God to open the Life of God to all who will come by simply believing God in His Astonishing Grace to them.
I did. It’s what raised the question you haven’t answered.
It mocks God to accuse Him of changing His mind or His law. He has not changed His law. He fulfills His Law for you in Jesus Christ. He covers the law of sin and death with His perfect blood, but He does not wipe out one yot or tittle of it. Look again at the Covenants of God. You might want to look particularly at the Noahide Covenant, since the rapture is prefigured there, according to Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.
So are we still to keep circumcision and the Temple sacrifices?
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.