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).
Perhaps Galatians, the third chapter, beginning at verse 15 and to the end of the chapter will help to clarify the distinction which some think is not a difference. Paul actually addressed that very question!
I am trying to understand your beliefs.
Not to speak for MHG, but here is some information on Bereanesque groups from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereans
Historically, the Bereans (also called Beroeans, Barclayans or Barclayites) were a Protestant sect following former Scottish Presbyterian minister John Barclay (1734-1798). Founded in Edinburgh in 1773, the Berean Church followed a modified form of Calvinism. It had congregations in Scotland, London and Bristol, but mainly merged with the Congregationalists after Barclay’s death in 1798.
A new Protestant Christian group began in the 1850s in the United States under the tutelage of Dr. John Thomas. The name “Christadelphian” was chosen as it is believed that those who believe and obey the Commandments of Christ and the Bible as the inspired word of God, are “Brethren in Christ”. The original group split, with one group continuing with the name “The Christadelphians” and the second group adding the word “Berean” to become the “Berean Christadelphians”. The word “Berean” was chosen to reflect the words in Acts 17, “These (Berea) were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so.” Christadelphians, and Berean Christadelphians believe in the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, and David concerning the Kingdom of God. They deny the Doctrine of the Trinity, a central tenet of orthodox Christianity, and this refusal to recognize the triune nature of God has resulted in a major impasse between the Christadelphians/Berean Christadelphians and the Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Some groups among the Bible Student movement also adopted the name, such as the Berean Bible Students and the Berean Bible Institute. Churches and institutions who adopt the Berean name, usually do so in order to express their desire to reflect the attitude of the Bereans in Acts 17, committing themselves to “searching the scriptures daily.”
After forty plus years being raised up in the Way I should go, stumbling and coming home again, stumbling and having His guiding hand slap me where I'll feel it then stand me up again, I am certain that teaching people to drink the literal blood of Jesus at Eucharist is a sacrilege, a sacrilege which denigrates what the Real Blood of Jesus was used to accomplish for you and for me. God wanted us to understand it so much that He gave foreshadowings of Messiah in the Feasts times of Israel. God has used Israel for our chalkboard lessons.
God has also left us clear messages regarding what He plans for this planet and humanity. Groups and folks get empowered by misleading others over what God teaches through His Word. His Spirit inspired the Word, His Spirit empowered the Word made flesh Who dwelt among us, and His spirit brings Born from Above LIFE to the dead human spirit when we faithe (yes, the verb form) in Him. When we believe God's Promises, we walk in faith, as Abraham did and it was counted for him righteousness.
Look around you in America. We are murdering millions of our alive unborn, for utilitarian purposes, allowed because Christians are not literally warring against such demonic things. Our nation deserves what the Amalekites got. But as with Sodom, as with Ninevah, as with Enoch and Noah, as with he Israelites 2000 years ago, God gives call after call but will not always strive with the rebellious.
God is Spirit and we worship Him in spirit and truth. Carnal focus is the antithesis of worshiping in spirit.
The Remembrance of His sacrifice for us is designed to aim the mind (part of the soul) toward the spiritual, much the way the incense altar is placed before the Holy of Holies, to prepare the Way to the Presence of God.
In this Church Age, God is in us by His Holy Spirit earnest of our inheritance, to raise us up in the Way that we should go, so that we can keep the Two Great commandments of Jesus now that the laws of sin and death are covered by His Blood upon the Mercy Seat.
God will not overwhelm our human soul, but He will never give up on the parenting while we are alive. Soon, He is going to snatch us away from the wickedness growing exponentially around us. It taints our places of work, our schools, our ballot boxes, our recreational areas, and our homes. We are literally in a well of evil intentions rushing around the planet as electromagnetic signals.
All around us are electromagnetic waves which carry information. A large amount of lies and filth are carried on those waves. All that is needed is a means to resonate those waves, to overwhelm our minds and emotion with the filth satan wants to mire us in in defiance of God. God told us The Life is in The Blood. Our life is in our blood, and the blood is an excellent means to spread a 'strange life' transmitted via electromagnetic waves to receivers implanted in the living body. The antichrist is planning a way to do just that, and people will accept the 'resonator' because if they don't they will not be able to buy or sell and cannot receive 'public servcies'. Any who accept satan's mark, his resonator, will be damned, for his life will be in their blood.
God is not going to leave His Church in a world like that, a world which He has assured us he intends to pour His wrath upon.
God has placed in each Believer His own resonating earnest of our inheritance, The Holy Spirit presence. When Christ comes in the air for His Bride, the signal God sends through the Angel's command will resonate that presence and transform us in the twinkling of an eye into body and soul and spirit fit for immortal living. You don't get His Life in you by drinking His blood, literally. You are imbued with His Spirit by believing in Whom He has sent for your deliverance.
Orthodox folks just say the bread and wine change when consecrated without further explaining the point. For them, you either accept what Christ Himself said or you have no faith in Christ. For Orthodox folks, someone saying they have faith in Christ while denying what Christ Himself said is foolishness at best and a willful denial that Christ as God at worst.
The Catholic Church elaborated what changes with consecration using the difference between substance and accident, terminology commonly used in philosophy, theology, and science discussions during the Middle Ages and well understood. Basically, it's a way to describe the nature of something independent of the physical properties it has.
The nature of something can change without there being any perceptible change to the physical attributes it has which is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches and always has taught. The Catholic Church has never taught that the accidents of the consecrated bread and wine change, but they have always taught that the substance changes into the body and blood of Christ exactly as Christ Himself said it does.
Neither approach to undersanding what Christ says takes place matters to Protestant folks. That's because in reality as opposed to their espoused doctrine, the overwhelming majority of Protestant folks place their faith in Self first and science when it serves their purposes, not in Jesus Christ.
They pretend to accept that Christ is God incarnate but then refuse to accept what Christ Himself said. They even routinely insist that if Christ meant exactly what He said then science could prove that the bread and wine are changed.
So much for "Faith Alone" as taught by those who so obviously have none.
The argument about the Real Presence is primarily just a way of denying the need for a sacrificial priesthood exactly the same way Korah denied the need for such a priesthood. The Lutheran (as well as a very few other small segments of various groups) approach is to not deny what Christ Himself said, but to claim that it is individual faith that consecrates the bread and wine, not consecreation by the priest in spite of Christ's actions at the Last Supper. That is, they deny what Christ did but not what Christ said.
The majority of Protestantism doesn't stop there, they deny both what Christ said and what Christ did at the Last Supper. They simply ignore the fact that what Jesus Christ, God incarnate, both said and did at the Last Supper were forshadowed in the Old Testament.
The vast majority of Protestant folks ignore it all, in spite of their claim to base what they believe on Scripture Alone they throw out anything in Scripture that complicates their embrace of the heresy of Korah. They ignore the Old Testament being fulfilled and claim the Last Supper is essentially meaningless because Christ and the Apostles were just having a snack. A grape Popsicle and handful of Cheerios for all intents and purposes.
So much for "Scripture Alone" as taught by those who so obviously ignore Scripture.
Instead of deceiving readers why don't catholic blood apologists TRY to show in the Old Testament where drinking the blood of the atonement lamb or the Passover lamb is taught? catholics can't because just the opposite is taught int hese prefigurings, but catholics will continue to float the lies to defend the sacrilege instead of practicing the sacred.
Very good post MHG
If someone believes Jesus Christ is God, the words of Christ Himself are sufficient.
Those who demand that someone "show" them something in addition to the words of Christ Himself must have a problem with the fact that Christ is God.
No need. That Jesus, who is God, said it is good enough.
I guess that would be like Catholics who add LOTS of stuff to the words of Christ. And they label it *sacred tradition*.
Kind of condemning for the Catholic church by your own words.
And PS all those covenant were completed by God in Christ ...
to 230
So sad that Catholics can not understand.. but my friend those were fulfilled by Christ ..
Interesting how you keep giving equivocating answers instead of just saying yes or no.
No the Old covenant was never "set aside" or changed.. The OT was a foreshadow Of Christ.. it was a promise ....
The laws that followed those covenants were such that NO MAN COULD KEEP...
A "covenant" or "agreement" is not synonymous with "law."...Only God Himself could fulfill the laws He gave ..AND HE DID... ALLOWING FOR A NEW COVENANT
Douay-Rheims Bible
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. ..Mat5; 17
I did give you a VERY DIRECT ANSWER ..Jesus fulfilled the Temple sacrifices ..by being the Lamb slain for my sin...
And likewise Circumcision also a type...
Deuteronomy 30:6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.....
Romans 2:29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God.
Please study your bible
I am going to take your answer as no, we do not have to keep the law of circumcision, dietary laws and Temple sacrifices. If Jesus can relieve of these laws he can do so also of the prohibition against blood in the reception of the Eucharist.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
If the Gospels do not agree with the catholic teaching, which do you folloow? Have you read the scene in Luke of the Passover meal before the Crucifixion? If you do not see there is a difference from what catholicism teaches then I leave you to your heresies. But if you do see there is a difference, the use of other scriptures passages is the way to resolve it. Apparenly, catholics do not want to know the sacred just the sacrilege.
Really?
Too WHOM were these LAWS supposed to APPLY to?
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.