In Vain Do They Worship Me

White Horse Inn ^ | April 13, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

[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).

[MHGinTN]

Try again. There is no such thing as ‘sola scriptura’, for the Spirit of the author is in every page and line. That little accusation is so brittle now that those who use it are seen for the foolish parrots they are. Those who will not see are left to their chosen blindness. They will not see Him as He really is, soon.

[Petrosius]

I am confused. Sola scriptura is one of the foundations of the Protestant Reformation. Do you not hold to it?

[MHGinTN]

How dull can one mind be to what has been posted repeatedly. Jesus's blood upon the Mercy Seat has cover the law of sin and death. it has not erased it, it has covered it. Those who accept the New Covenant are not under the law of sin and death, which includes the laws of Moses. You are to keep the relationship as a member of God's family, if so be that you have been Born from Above into His family. Otherwise you can choose a Covenant you can try to fulfill. But that's a losing proposition, catholic.

You might find it interesting to look in the latter part of the Revelation and see that there will be a new Temple during the Millennial Kingdom, and sacrifices will occur there. What would you make of that?

[MHGinTN]

How could you think I would hold to that when I just said that it is a myth because the Author of the Scriptures is alive on every page and in every line of Scriptura. If sola scriptura was valid, sola Moby Dick would be also. It is like the silly accusation of ‘self and self alone’.

[MHGinTN]

Be patient with me for yet another question.

What does the following from Psalms then Hebrews mean to your ear?

Psalms 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

[Petrosius]

Those who accept the New Covenant are not under the law of sin and death, which includes the laws of Moses.

So God can change the law. Thank you.

[Petrosius]

I would take it then that you are not a Protestant. What are you then?

[MHGinTN]

LOL ... God can do just about anything. But He won't biolate His own character. He can make a new covenant without erasing the previous one, that's why you would do well to read about the Noahide covenant. When Jesus fulfilled the law, it did not erase it. And you're welcome.

[MHGinTN]

I am a Christ ian, one of those run-of-the-mill Bereanesque Born from Above people who have been brought into God’s Family by the Lord Jesus Christ. I am also called generically part of the Body of Christ and The Bride of Christ. He is returning soon to take me and the rest of this family to be with Him in His Father’s House, where we will have a mikvah cleansing that will brun away all the wood hay and stubble I’ve been generating, leaving just the Gold Silver and precious stones He has generate through me. I’m workin’ hard here to make you one of those precious stones. Help me out here!

[Petrosius]

I am trying to understand your beliefs. Unless they are uniquely your own, what specific Christian group do you belong to? Do you hold that the covenants of Noah or Moses are still active for those who chose them rather than the New Covenant in Jesus Christ? I am just trying to understand you.

[MHGinTN]

Paul has already answer those questions for you. ALL the answers are in the Epistle to the Romans. By faith in Him we can be Born from Above. By placing our faith in Him we can walk not after the flesh, which is under the law of sin and death, but after the Spirit, which in Christ. For behold, those in Christ are a New Creation. They can walk after the spirit and be raised up in the Way that they should go as members of God's family. How can they be members of God's family? ... They have His LIFE (you know, the life that was in that Perfect blood spread upon the Mercy Seat, covering the law of sin and death) IN THEM.

John 14:

v6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. v16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; v17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

[knarf]

Catholics have a 33.3% chance of going to Heaven on the first shot ...

and a 66.66% chance of not.

Lousy odds

D'ya think God pats us on the head and says, "Good luck, kid .... hope y'make it" ?

magungdung hapun, Bro.

[Mark17]

D'ya think God pats us on the head and says, "Good luck, kid .... hope y'make it" ?

Not good odds at all. I figured out, that I would not be satisfied with anything less than a 100% iron clad guarantee of salvation. 😇 I know, some people think we can't know for sure till we die. Nope, not good enough for me.

By now, it is already magandang gabi 😂

[LadyDoc]

She isn’t really posting what Catholics believe. She is posting talking points to “convert” those of us who are heathens in her eyes. She mixes the truth along with partial truths to deceive her readers.

[Elsie]

The purest form of religion on earth, says Rome, is to bow before a piece of bread and worship it.

Strange...

The Book that Rome compiled says something a bit different:

---

James 1:27

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this:
to look after orphans and widows in their distress
and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

[Elsie]

And it's from that letter they like to quote from a lot; too!

James

[Elsie]

But then you most grieviously injured Augustine.

Then I shall apply some salve to the wounds...

---

As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18

 

• Augustine, sermon:

"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.

 

• Augustine, sermon:

For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)

 

• Augustine, sermon:

And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289

 

• Augustine, sermon:

Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95

 

• Augustine, sermon:

...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193

 

• Augustine, Psalm LXI:

Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)

 

• Augustine, in “Retractions,”

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

 

[Elsie]

From your Catholic upbringing you should be very aware of Eucharistic miracles.

By reading the Bible; one becomes aware of SATANIC 'miracles'.

[Elsie]

Jesus said “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood.” I have the faith to believe what he said.

He also said, "You brood of vipers."

Where's your faith led you on this statement?

[Elsie]

Every argument against the Real Presence is equally an argument against the Incarnation.

No; it's not.

You might as well say:

Every argument for Jesus being sinless is equally an argument for His mother's sinlessness.