Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Vain Do They Worship Me
White Horse Inn ^ | April 13, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

Posted on 06/23/2015 10:06:16 AM PDT by RnMomof7

Eucharistic adorationThe 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).


TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; Other Christian
KEYWORDS: bread; idolatry; mass; romancatholics; timothykauffman; whitehorseinn; worship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281 next last
To: Campion

LOL ... the priest makes them say it.


61 posted on 06/23/2015 12:16:02 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Jesus fuldilled ALL the symbols. It is by faith that you are saved, not of works lest anyman should boast. By faith the symbols have spiritual reality. Is the new covenant a cup? ... The Indiana Jones movie is not a proof source, searching for a magical cup.


62 posted on 06/23/2015 12:18:24 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Ya can lead a catholic to truth but ya can’t make him eat.


63 posted on 06/23/2015 12:19:11 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Campion; MHGinTN
NICE dodge... Let's try to re-read the question and answer it:

"If a catholic can show me even one phrase in the OT of Messiah where God instructs the High Priest or any child of God to drink this precious blood to be sprinkled on the Mercy Seat, I will attend the next Catholic mass in my city and take the Eucharist from the Priest."

The lambs were prepared according to Levitical law... not with blood or in it's mother's milk, etc. So your statement doesn't follow.

Can you demonstrate one phrase in the Old Testament where God instructs anyone to drink the blood? Anywhere?

Let's try to stay on the subject this time.

Hoss

64 posted on 06/23/2015 12:21:33 PM PDT by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Campion
"... upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."
65 posted on 06/23/2015 12:21:53 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Then I guess you’re running around with eyes missing and hands cut off as well??


66 posted on 06/23/2015 12:28:15 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I can assure you, the Apostles didn’t understand “eat this” and “drink of it” at the Last Supper to mean a metaphor for faith.

Really? Prove that statement then. Direct proof required. If you can assure us, then do so.

Hoss

67 posted on 06/23/2015 12:28:44 PM PDT by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: HossB86
Can you demonstrate one phrase in the Old Testament where God instructs anyone to drink the blood?

Oh, the old blood hangup. The OT tells you exactly why you aren't to drink blood: "For the life of every creature is its blood; its blood is its life" (Lv 17:14)

Which is exactly why Jesus, who is God, promulgates a new law in commanding us to drink His blood: because we must have his life within us.

It's always funny that you guys are hung up on OT ritual prohibitions. Do you eat pork? Mix linen and wool? Those things really *are* symbolic; when the reality comes, the symbol goes away.

68 posted on 06/23/2015 12:28:55 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

Read the Fathers and early church history. You’ll see exactly what they understood it to mean. Go to any Seder and you see that real food is really eaten.


69 posted on 06/23/2015 12:30:31 PM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Which is exactly why Jesus, who is God, promulgates a new law in commanding us to drink His blood: because we must have his life within us.

Which is what we have when we believe on him by faith alone. The only blood that saves is Christ's shed blood on the cross, not in some unbiblical ritual that Roman Cultists practice.

When we're saved, we are regenerated by the power of God Almighty; we have his Holy Spirit -- he makes us new, resurrects our dead souls to eternal life. His life in us is his Holy Spirit given to us through faith by grace.

Not some a piece of bread.

Hoss

70 posted on 06/23/2015 12:34:26 PM PDT by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Campion
The commandment was FOR ALL THEIR GENERATIONS and as far as I can tell Jesus was in those generations through Mary. If Jesus had violated that commandment on Passover night, BEFORE the blood was shed to seal the covenant, well then Jesus would not have been the lamb without spot or blemish. Look at the passage in Luke 22. Compare it to the passages you keep pushing to support this heretical drinking of blood. Is God double-minded? No? well then, how do you reconcile / comprehend the different passages to be of the same meaning? By knowing the wording is a classic use of metaphor. You need not ignore the generations of Jesus, the commandment repeated in the old Testament, and the Times of The Lord to find a common ground for the seemingly disparate passages.
71 posted on 06/23/2015 12:36:11 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Skooz

Unfortunately, the attacks go both ways...


72 posted on 06/23/2015 12:37:31 PM PDT by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Skooz

...”I’m not a Catholic. But, these attacks on the Catholic Church make me sick.”....

Scroll on by then... let the Word of God do what it’s intended to do against false teachings and teachers....which it’s been doing regarding catholicism for centuries in order to being out those who would come out from the bondage they are in.

Do not stand in the way of God’s Spirit’s Work to rescue the perishing within catholcism.... for he is long suffering toward those within the catholic church having great patience to those who are deceived and led astray ...


73 posted on 06/23/2015 12:43:38 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HossB86
The only blood that saves is Christ's shed blood on the cross, not in some unbiblical ritual that Roman Cultists practice.

That ritual was established by Jesus Christ and is in the Bible:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, l for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 25:26-28)
It is really a shame that there are so many who are embarrassed by the words of our Lord that they have to find rationalizations to deny them.

When we're saved, we are regenerated by the power of God Almighty; we have his Holy Spirit -- he makes us new, resurrects our dead souls to eternal life. His life in us is his Holy Spirit given to us through faith by grace.

And I thought that you knew the Bible:

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.
74 posted on 06/23/2015 12:49:40 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

The commandment was FOR ALL THEIR GENERATIONS and as far as I can tell Jesus was in those generations through Mary. If Jesus had violated that commandment on Passover night, BEFORE the blood was shed to seal the covenant, well then Jesus would not have been the lamb without spot or blemish. Look at the passage in Luke 22. Compare it to the passages you keep pushing to support this heretical drinking of blood. Is God double-minded? No? well then, how do you reconcile / comprehend the different passages to be of the same meaning? By knowing the wording is a classic use of metaphor. You need not ignore the generations of Jesus, the commandment repeated in the old Testament, and the Times of The Lord to find a common ground for the seemingly disparate passages.


75 posted on 06/23/2015 1:12:30 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

Back up to Cornelius......


76 posted on 06/23/2015 1:15:38 PM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
As eagleone has adeptly pointed out, what do you do with the household of Cornelius? The Holy Spirit came into them even as Peter preached, without even a clue of spoken words just the belief in their hearts. To reconcile the two, you passages of having the hands laid on and receiving the Holy Spirti and the Holy Spirit coming while just the belief is in their hearts, you need to understand the reality of Salvation by faith alone.

Cornelius was a Roman Centurion. He and his household had been observing the Jewsih religious system, with faith. When they heard the truth coming out of Peter's mouth regarding the Messiah, they believed the Messaih had come and Peter was telling them about Him. Their belief resulted in God's Life coming into them. How could this bee, if they were still sinners in God's sight? ... Perfect sinless blood upon the Mercy Seat in Heaven covers the law of sin and death, once for all, forever.

But what of the ones who had hands laid on to receive the Holy Spirit, you might now ask? Well, only God knows what was happening in the hearts of those folks, but we can be assured that God's Life would not come into them unless their alignment to the laws of sin and death had been covered by His Precious blood and His sacrifice for the penalty due them had been counted for them, and activated by faith in Him, not works. So it may be (conjecture here, not claiming divine knowledge) that when the Life of God in Paul and the other Apostles comes into their presence, their trust in God to be Savior and Lord is transformed into spiritual faithing in the Promise of God.

Recall that the Baptism of John was fro repentance. Until the Mercy Seat has The Perfect blood upon it, there is no covering of sin and death that is permanent. That's why the Jewish High Priest enter each year to perform the ritual. Those who had repented under John's Baptism had yet to hear the Gospel preached and thus have the belief in Jesus as Messiah actualized in their human souls. Perhaps that's why Jesus command us to go into all the world and preach that same Gospel, for it has the spiritual power to spark faith in Him as Savior and Lord so He will place His Life in you.

77 posted on 06/23/2015 1:37:19 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Read the Bible and it get it from THE source.

Hoss

78 posted on 06/23/2015 1:43:20 PM PDT by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

God is sovereign over the Law. Do not try to constrain him.


79 posted on 06/23/2015 1:43:34 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

False accusation is a no no. Jesus said He came to fulfill the law. A double-minded God would just change his mind and not need to fulfill His Law. Was the New Covenant Jesus spoke of a cup?


80 posted on 06/23/2015 1:45:29 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Is it really all relative, Mister Einstein?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson