“m.k.” Takes on the Catholic Church

A reader going by the pseudonym of “m.k.” sent me a small treatise yesterday in which he or she takes on the Catholic Church on the issues of infallibility and transubstantiation.  I haven’t had time to read the whole thing, but I did notice that the essay is filled with research and citations from excellent sources.  So with m.k.’s permission I have published the entire letter, not because I agree with its contents—I don’t—but because this person has crafted an intelligent, coherent, and rational argument.   I certainly believe that the Church’s teachings can be defended with rational argument, and so I invite readers to read the letter, and offer their responses.  The mission of New Walden is to promote the truth of Christianity by reason and argument, not by silencing dissenters. We believe in free speech over here.  You don’t need a bodyguard to express your opinion at New Walden.  So here is the letter:

Dear Catholic Crusader, Truly, all it took for David was one stone to bring down Goliath. In like manner, the word “truly” contained in this ten minute essay has the potential to … truly … bring down the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to their claim of infallibility. If it can be shown that they made even one factual error, then truly, any notion of their infallibility falls to the ground, and like a stack of dominoes, all of her other doctrines fall right along with it. Here is what we mean: the catechism quotes the Council of Trent… “Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body He was offering under the species of bread” (CCC 1376). No, he did not say any such thing. Let’s unpack this statement. We notice that there are three distinct errors in this one sentence alone! Jesus did not “say” that he was “offering” anything, let alone that the bread was “truly” his body. Trent’s first error was the brazen lie of telling us Jesus said something, when he didn’t. The second offense was alleging that Jesus was offering himself in sacrifice right there at table before he went to the cross. Trent teaches, “At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed [He] offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine…” NO! Jesus offered his body one time and only one time (1 Peter 2:24) …i.e., at the cross, and certainly not at the Last Supper, and definitely not at any Mass going on today. Jesus said he desired to eat the Passover “before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). That being so, he did not suffer and offer himself in sacrifice to God the Father at the dinner table before he went to the cross! The Bible strictly and emphatically denies any repeated offerings whatsoever (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:25-26, 9:28, 10:10, 10:12, 10:14, 10:18), making the Pope a liar when he teaches that, “Christ daily offers himself upon our altars for our redemption” (Mediator Dei, #73). Trent’s third offense was stealing the word “truly” from John 6:53, (“Truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…”) and transplanting that word into the mouth of Christ at the Last Supper, where he did not “truly” affirm that at all. Trent was responding to the Reformers, and classified any opposing view as, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. In their decree on the Eucharist, they maintained they were being guided by the Holy Spirit, but in their zeal to counter-attack the Reformers, they showed they were guided only by their emotions. No Bible on Earth records Jesus saying the bread was “truly” his body, and so Trent was wrong to claim that he did. The Bible says, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken” (Deut 18:22). The same principle applies here in evaluating the claim of infallibility. OBJECTION: The Council of Trent was not wrong by claiming Jesus said the bread was truly his body because that is what he meant! ANSWER: Trent is perfectly free to think Transubstantiation is what Jesus meant by, “This is my body”, as are we free to think that he meant no such literal thing. However, Trent is not free to teach that he said the bread was truly his body to justify their belief that Transubstantiation is a literal fact, any more than we are free to teach that he said the bread was not his literal body, to justify our opinion that Transubstantiation is false. Each of our respective cases must be based predominantly on the biblical criteria without the need to put words in the mouth of our Savior (2 Tim 3:15-17). The biblical axiom is, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no; for whatever is more than this comes from evil” (Matt 5:37). Trent did not do this and so they are, by biblical definition, “evil”, when it comes to infallibility. OBJECTION: The word “truly” is there to paraphrase that Christ was not speaking symbolically, but is part of the Church’s interpretation that Christ meant what he said, literally. ANSWER: Anyone who knowingly paraphrases is obligated to reveal their intention at the get-go to prepare the reader for what follows. Otherwise, we are to, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no; for whatever is more than this comes from evil” (Matt 5:37). OBJECTION: Let’s say you tell me that you disagree with the Pope’s stand on the death penalty. The next day I tell someone you… “said” … that you “completely” disagree with the Pope on the death penalty. Would you consider that a dishonest paraphrase of what you meant? ANSWER: No. It would be fair to report that although I didn’t actually say “completely”, that you paraphrased my thoughts accurately. No harm done. On the other hand, Trent planted a very bad seed that germinated and burst forth into a flat-out lie. The fact that, “God is not a man that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19), demands both arguments be represented fairly so the better of the two shines forth (1 Kings 18:24; Proverbs 18:17; 1 Cor 11:19). Trent overstates their case by demanding Jesus “said” the bread was “truly” his body, when in fact, he did not “truly” say that at all. In John 21:22, we read of a rumor that was going around based on something Jesus supposedly said. But in the next breath, the Text reports that Jesus did not actually say that at all. It is conclusive therefore, that this essay is in perfect harmony with the Spirit of Truth who is in favor of what Jesus actually said, rather than what he supposedly said. Hence, the controlling factor behind the Council of Trent was certainly not Spirit-driven. As if the first exaggeration were not bad enough, they compound their error with this: “For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth, that to be his own body which he presented [to them]”. The student of the Bible will notice at once that Jesus most certainly did not “affirm with truth” that the elements were actually his body and blood. He simply said, “This is my body”! An affirmation of truth conveys something to the effect of, “Truly, truly I say unto you”, or something similar in the way of, “Listen up, this is important!”. But our Host at the Last Supper did not do this, and therefore, Trent was over-reacting and subsequently misrepresented Jesus a second time. If the grandiose claim of Transubstantiation is on course, it should stand out like a ship in the night with the floodlights of Scripture to guide it without misquoting Christ. Those of us in life rafts looking for salvation would then be more than happy to anchor our soul in the ocean of its truth. As it stands, the stormy ship in which Roman Catholics are sailing is taking in so much water, there doesn’t seem to be enough hands below deck with buckets to bail them out. Typically, all hands on deck refuse to even interact with the voluminous evidence against them, and throws it overboard. Trent’s decree simply dismisses the opposition as, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. But it is beyond ridiculous to suppose someone is downright “godless” when they attempt to compare Scripture with Scripture (Acts 17:11, 1 Cor 2:13). Is it “godless” to assert that, “This is my body” falls into the same metaphorical category as, “The Lord is my shepherd” (Psalm 23), or , “You are the salt of the earth” (Matt 5:13) or, “All flesh is as grass”? (1 Peter 1:24). Since all the world agrees that the object in each verse symbolizes or represents the subject, we are not out of order, let alone godless, to insist that the bread represents Christ’s body. The point is this: By not allowing “This is my body” to breathe on its own, Trent sinned by… “truly”… adding to the word of God, which is prohibited (Deut 4:2, Prov 30:6, Rev 22:18). Therefore, because we know the sanctity of God’s word is endorsed down to the last “jot and tittle” (Matt 5:18), the Holy Spirit would never inspire Trent to misquote Jesus, even just a “tittle”. That said, the gift of infallibility was no more given to the church of Rome than there is a man in the moon, and that being so, the entire Roman Catholic faith is to be rejected per Deuteronomy 18:22 and Jeremiah 23:30-40. It is promised in those passages that all false prophets who recklessly wag their tongues by asserting, “The Lord says”, (when the Lord did not say), will be cast out of his presence (cf. Jeremiah 14:14, 23:16-21). OBJECTION: Only the actual canons that have an anathema attached to them, are infallible (i.e., “If anyone says…” — and ends with, “let him be anathema”). The two places you quote from are in the decree “introduction” and “chapter” 4, not the actual “canon” themselves. “Introductions” and “chapters” are not infallible. ANSWER: You are forgetting that Trent professed to be guided by the Holy Spirit at both the beginning and end of their decree introduction, and not in a “canon with an attached anathema.” Shall we, according to your logic, conclude that whenever a council claims infallible guidance in a “decree” — and not in an actual “canon”, it may not be necessarily true after all? While that would be fine with us, we doubt the Pope would agree. He actually prefaces the error-filled paragraph 1376, by telling us, “The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith [by saying]…” Think of it! The very essence of the Roman Catholic religion is built upon and summarized by the dark shadows contained in one, single and solitary error-filled sentence! Furthermore, neither Trent, nor any of the three popes who presided over the long-run of that council, nor any of the modern Popes, let alone the current catechism, make any distinction whatsoever between the supposedly infallible and non-infallible portions of a council’s decree. Instead, Trent made itself perfectly clear that everything contained in their decree is to be “preserved until the end of time”. What is a decree? A. By definition, a “decree” is an official order issued by a higher authority that is unbreakable. Trent’s document is entitled, “Decree Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist”, and the introduction and chapters which follow are naturally a part of that decree which cannot be broken. B. Code of Canon Law says, “All Christ’s faithful are obligated to observe the constitutions and decrees…(#754), and the catechism confirms these decrees (CCC 9). C. “A council’s decrees approved by the Pope are infallible” (on-line, New Advent article, “General Councils”). D. “The infallible sacred magisterium includes the extraordinary declarations of…ecumenical councils traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons and decrees” (on-line, Wiki article, “Infallibility of the Church”). Pope John XXIII confirms, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent” . E. A second Pope, quoting Trent from chapter 4 (and not a “canon” with an anathema attached) says: “This sets forth once more the perennially [permanently!] valid teaching of the Council of Trent [which the] Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called…transubstantiation” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia: 15) Thus, Trent was unambiguous, intending the entire decree, to the letter, be preserved till kingdom come. They, “forbid all the faithful of Christ henceforth to believe, teach, or preach anything about the most Holy Eucharist that is different from what is explained and defined in this present decree”. Instead of letting the Bible breathe on its own, Trent has essentially quoted Jesus out of context. Even if Transubstantiation were true, we are quite sure the Lord would not take kindly to putting words in his mouth. Neither would he take kindly to taking words out of his mouth, for Catholics contravene the original command to partake of both bread and wine, and instead teach Jesus would be pleased we take either one! However, the Lord said the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). Therefore, no reasons whatsoever can justify breaking the Scriptures by haphazardly adding and subtracting to his word (Rev 22:18-19). The Living Nightmare of “another jesus” By putting the word “truly’ into the mouth of Christ while declaring to be guided by the Spirit, the Council of Trent contradicts the counsel of modern day Rome, where we read, “In him [Christ], he [God] has said everything; there will be no other word than this one” (CCC 65). Yet…Trent did indeed add a word, and it is by that single, erroneous word that exposes Trent to have, “boasted of a false gift [making them] like clouds and wind with no rain” (Proverbs 25:14). This one, single, misapplied word is the Achilles heel of the magisterium when it comes to their claim of infallibility and results in a living nightmare of, “another jesus and another gospel” per 2 Corinthians 11:4. But now, a wake-up call is being issued to arise out of your spiritual coma and cast aside the noose around your neck known as Transubstantiation. “Believe it not” Jesus lays down the general principle to denounce any future claims of his bodily presence by saying, “if they shall say to you, Behold he is in the desert; go not forth [and] believe it not” (Matt 24:26; Mk 13:21). Yet the Pope wants you to believe that, “Look! He is there in the Eucharist!” But Christ himself says he is not there! Hence, we are in no way being asked to ingest the physical anatomy of the Lord Jesus Christ via some nebulous, metaphysical process! Transubstantiation cannot even be reconciled with any kind of natural philosophy, so why even try? The Lord says he is against doctrine that promotes controversial speculation (1 Tim 3-4) and Transubstantiation is as controversial as it gets! Living Water and Living Bread When we compare texts (1 Cor 2:13), we notice the term “living” used in John 4 & 6. Jesus offered the woman “living water” and offered the unbelieving Jews “living bread”. Neither example was referring to a physical reality, but to spiritual truth! Thus, because he had no intention to offer the woman at the well a literal cup of H20 in chapter 4, then neither was there any offer to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood in chapter 6. The parallel is clear: if drinking physical water does not produce eternal life in chapter 4, then neither does drinking his blood produce eternal life in chapter 6. Only he can provide the living (spiritual) water that is required for eternal life, which by definition, is the indwelling promise of the Holy Spirit (John 7:38-9) which guarantees we will be raised on the last day. However, both the catechism and the Pope deny this and contradict the Bible when they assert that there is no surer pledge than the Eucharist which is the “antidote of death” and “the pledge of our bodily resurrection at the end of the world” (CCC 1405; Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 18). On the contrary, it is not having ingested the Eucharist which confirms we shall be raised on the last day, but rather, the fact that we are “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise who is the guarantee of our inheritance” (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30-1; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5). In other words, the Spirit is given to us as a downpayment in pledge that the entire inheritance will follow because we are joint-heirs with Christ, and it is this power that will result in our resurrection: “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwells in you” (Romans 8:11). Again, the “water” of the Holy Spirit — and not the Eucharist, becomes a river that bubbles up inside us, pledging to us eternal life (John 4:13-14; 7:38-39). Eating and Drinking = Believing in Christ Should we then accept what the Vatican says when they tell us that Jesus “transforms himself into food and drink”? Definitely not! (“The Bible & Morality” by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, 75; cf. CCC 1383, 1402). Jesus said that his metaphorical “food” was to do the will of the Father (John 4:34). In like manner, our metaphorical food, is to “eat Jesus, God’s true bread”; i.e., by believing in him, stated to be the express will of the Father in 6:29. Essentially, “eating and drinking” are synonymous with “believing in Christ” because they both produce the same result: namely, eternal life! In John 5:24, 6:35, 6:40, 6:47, we read that believing in him results in everlasting life. When compared with verses 51 and 54, we learn that eating his flesh and drinking his blood also brings eternal life. Stated in plain language: “everyone who sees the Son and believes on Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:40) Stated in figurative language: “whoso eateth my flesh and drinks my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54). What Jesus states literally in vs. 40, he states metaphorically in vs. 54. The latter is the metaphorical way of referring to the former. Hence, these are merely two ways of saying the same thing, as in another example, “Lazarus sleepeth, but I go to awake him out of sleep”. The disciples said not to bother, let him enjoy his rest. But the Lord replied, “Lazarus is dead” (John 11:11). Jesus decorated his speech with ornaments indicating a double meaning, but in reality, having only one thought in mind. Lazarus was either asleep or he was dead, not both. Nicodemas was commanded to crawl back into his mother’s womb or be born again spiritually, not both. He offered the woman at the well a drink of physical water, or the living water of the indwelling Spirit, not both. He wanted the Jews to either believe that he could rebuild the temple in three days, or to believe on him as the Messiah, not both. Jesus wants us to either eat his flesh or to believe in him, not both. The command to eat his flesh four times Catholics typically remind us that Jesus repeated four times in a row that it was vital to consume his physical anatomy (6:51-56), as if this emphasis is proof for their literal interpretation. But what they never stop to consider is that this four-time repetition was needed to counter-balance the four times he said it was imperative to believe in him! (vs. 29, 35, 40, 47), just as he counter-balanced Peter’s triple denial with a triple question (John 21:17). Common sense dictates he is making the same point in all eight verses by merely intensifying the act of believing through metaphor. Making the same point via the use of stylistic variance, is an effective method to reinforce a bottom-line truth without being redundant. These are simply the earmarks of a good teacher. He goes on to explain that, “It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life” (John 6:63). Thus, he confirms that to consume his actual flesh would profit absolutely nothing, for it is his words which are “spirit and life”, meaning they are the by-product of the Holy Spirit, which when rightly understood, have the potential to generate new life. Do we really have to “eat God”? To imagine actually eating the flesh and blood of our Savior is simply out of sync with the biblical precedent of “eating God” in a metaphorical sense stated elsewhere. “Hearken diligently to me and eat” (Isa 55:2) is just as metaphorical as when Jesus equates believing in him with eating his flesh and blood! The same goes for, “Oh taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8). The same goes for he being the “Fountain of Living Waters” (Jeremiah 2:13). The same goes for the invitation to “everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters…and draw water out of the wells of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3, 55:1; cf. Psalm 42:1, 63:1, John 7:35-7). The same goes for when Israel “drank of that spiritual rock that followed them” (1 Cor 10:4). God had provided water in the wilderness, splitting rocks and causing streams of water to flow out of them (Psalm 78:15-16). However, the rock was not literally Christ, just as the bread was not literally his body. They “drank” from their spiritual Rock, who was Christ supplying their need. Likewise, when we “drink the pure milk of the word”, we have been supplied with, “tasting the kindness of the Lord” (1 Peter 2:2-3), where we all, “drink into one spirit” (1 Cor 12:13). All of this vivid, metaphorical imagery wreaks havoc with Rome’s ghastly literal approach to John 6 and the Last Supper! But how? The Jews asked, but how can this man rebuild the temple in three days? Nicodemus asked, but how can a man be born again when he is old? The woman at the well asked, but how was it possible to give her “living water”? And finally, the grumbling Jews wondered, but how can this man give us his flesh to eat? In all cases, it is the far too literal comprehension of Jesus’ words that result in misunderstanding! We should not be surprised at this because, “These things have I spoken unto you in figurative language; but an hour is coming when I shall no more speak unto you in figurative language, but I shall show you plainly…” (John 16:25). Notice, that was chapter 16. When we consider that chapter 6 took place before Jesus’s “hour to speak plainly”, then we may rightfully expect him to be speaking more often in figurative language. If this wasn’t enough, another crude, misapprehension of his words are recorded for us three times (Matt 16, Mark 16, Luke 12). Jesus chided the disciples for being far too literal in their understanding of his warning about the leaven of the Pharisees. He was not speaking about literally eating bread, but about swallowing the doctrine of the Pharisees. “How is it that you don’t understand that I was not talking about [literal] bread?” We are quite certain he would say the same thing to Catholics today; “How is it that you don’t understand that I was not talking about eating my literal flesh under the appearance of bread?” In reality, he wishes us to “taste and see” the benefits of the promised Messiah! (Psalm 34:8). Catholicism has fallen into the exact same error as those who preceded them. The “Bread of Life” discourse Have you ever stopped to consider how, if Jesus really meant for them to eat his flesh and drink his blood, could his audience comply with this command since the Eucharist was not instituted until a year later? After all, Jesus was requesting they “eat him” right there on the spot (”unless you eat”, i.e., “now”, present tense). Without an answer to this question, the Catholic position must be rejected due to there being no tangible way to comply with his command. The Protestant position, on the other hand, correctly teaches that spectators could indeed comply with his request to “eat him”, simply by believing in him. As Augustine said, “For to believe on him is to eat the living bread. He that believes, eats…” (NPNF1: Vol II, Tractates on John, Tractate 26). To believe something, is to accept, internalize and absorb that data into our soul. This is exactly what happens when we eat. Our bodies accept the food through the mouth, and it gets absorbed through digestion. Jesus categorically told them that the type of eating he was talking about was, “NOT as your fathers did eat manna and are now dead” (6:58), but rather, it was a type of metaphorical eating where they were to digest the truth of His words, not eat him alive; just as he was not going to actually “eat” the Father’s will, but simply obey it (John 4:34). To eat his actual flesh would profit them zero. Zilch. Nil. Nada. Nothing (John 6:63). Rather, as the prophet said: “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jeremiah 15:16). Since the controlling factor of the gospel of John from start to finish was to believe in Christ, and eating and drinking are metaphors for just that very thing, this was an invitation his audience in chapter 6 could easily attend to if their eyes were opened to his intriguing metaphor (Luke 24:45). More proof from Ezekiel, Sirach and Proverbs “So I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little book. And he said to me, “Take it and eat it…” (Ezek 2:8-3:3:1-10). Just as Ezekiel was told to eat the book he saw in outstretched hands, so too was John told to “take and eat” the little book held in outstretched hands in Revelation 10, which in turn reminds us of when Christ told his disciples to “take and eat” what was in his outstretched hands at Supper. “Eating” was meant to internalize the message, making it an inward passion, ready to deliver to others, for the prophet was told, “Hear with your ears and receive into your heart all my words” (Ez 3:10; cf. Psalm 119:9, 103; Jer 15:16; Job 23:12). This is precisely what we are to do when we “eat Jesus, God’s true bread”. The books (or scrolls) that were eaten were not made of any sort of literal paper because our bodies were not designed to digest those materials. Neither is the Catholic Eucharist made up of the literal Christ, which our bodies were not designed to digest either. The books, as well as the bread in Communion, were indeed meant to be consumed, but the overarching purpose of both was to digest what was said and then proclaim those truths: “Eat what thou findest; eat this scroll and go speak to the house of Israel” (Ez 3:2). Thus, the metaphorical concept of eating which is defined as incorporating into our being what we have heard, has a rock-solid foundation that Rome totally avoids in her catechism because they know it rains on her eucharistic parade. Rome does not even follow the logic of their own book of Sirach, where we read of the concept of “wisdom” being personified in a metaphorical way. She (wisdom) offers an unusual meal, in which the more one eats, the more one desires. “He who eats me will hunger still; he who drinks me will thirst for more” (24:21). Now if all Catholics believe “eating and drinking wisdom” is metaphorical in the book of Sirach, why will they not believe that Jesus, who is the very wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:30) may also be metaphorically eaten in chapter 6 and the Last Supper? “Wisdom” again speaks in Proverbs 9:5, portrayed as a person. She issues a metaphorical invitation, precisely as Christ did: “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine I have mixed.” It is absolutely irrefutable that bread and wine are being used here in a symbolic sense, which is exactly why Rome has no excuse for denying that Jesus was using metaphor at the Last Supper. The Final Analysis This essay may be likened to a matador in a bullfight. It was meant to be the matador’s red cape that incites and provokes bull-headed Catholics in another direction; namely, to the REAL Christ of the Bible, and not to the alleged “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist. The real Jesus repeatedly declared that his physical presence was going away! (John 13:1, 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5-7, 16:29, 16:10, 7:34, 17:11). And Paul confirmed in 2 Cor 5:16 that, “though we have known Christ in the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more [in the flesh]”, and that would mean that any notion of his flesh in the Eucharist must be unthinkable. Christ is in the one taking the bread; not that Christ is in the bread. Scripture is crystal clear that the birthright of every born-again Christian has the irrevocable promise of the triune God to be with us via the means of the Holy Spirit and not the Eucharist (John 14:21-23, Rev 3:20). Potential converts were promised the gift of the Holy Spirit, and not the gift of his real, physical presence via the Eucharist (Acts 2:38, 8:15, 9:17, 11:16, 19:2). God signified his presence in the temple by filling it with the cloud of his glory (1 Kings 8:10-11); but now he lives in his people by filling them with the Holy Spirit and not the Eucharist! The evidence is overwhelming! He is received by simple faith, and not by the complicated and controversial Eucharist (John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13, Romans 5:5, 8:11, 1 Cor 3:16, 6:19; 2 Cor 4:7, 6:16, 13:5; Galatians 2:20, 3:2, 4:6, Eph 1:13, Eph 2:21-22, 1 Peter 2:5, 1 John 2:27). The doctrine of Transubstantiation is a snake that continues to bite Catholics to this very day. It is a viperous theology that must be defanged by the anti-venom of Scripture, common sense and reason. Part of “loving God with all our mind” (Matt 22) is using logic, and so we are compelled to say with Paul, “I am not insane, most excellent Festus. What I am saying is true and reasonable” (Acts 26:25). Consequently, the many dark clouds hanging over the Eucharist demands that it be “exposed and demolished” (Eph 5:11, 2 Cor 10:5). Sadly, the bull-headedness of the typical Catholic is to sweep any biblical evidence against them under the nearest rug in favor of what someone believed in the early church! However, they forget that Paul was amazed that the early church was so quickly abandoning everything they had been taught (Galatians 1:6) and predicted that grievous wolves would arise, even among their own selves to lure them away (Acts 20:29). For that reason, the core of our theology must be found in the drama played out in the word of God (2 Tim 3:15-17) and not in the dramatics of those who came after it. We know very well all this is a shock to your system, and so we challenge you to refute this argument. If you can’t, the only sensible option is to, “Come OUT of [the Roman Catholic Church] my people, lest you share in her sins” (Rev 18:4).