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).
61 thoughts on ““m.k.” Takes on the Catholic Church”
m.k., aka, Eucharistic Angel, aka, MoJo, aka gatecrasher HAS BEEN TOTALLY REFUTED. m.,k., goes by numerous usernames. He is a staunch anti-Catholic bigot. Please read the whipping he received from Timothy P on a closed debate on the Holy Eucharist and the Early Church Fathers:
MoJo is just one of Satans Accordion Monkeys who jumps around blog sites and youtube videos when his organ grinder Satan, makes him do so.
Nobody has been utterly refuted and defeated as MoJo has been. Please read the comments. The debate is now open to anyone.
blessings to all,
People, m. k. aka MoJo, aka gatecrasher, aka Eucharistic Angel has just completed a private debate with Timothy, a Catholic, on solasymbolic.wordpress.com. This debate will be made public when Timothy, completes his last comment today (March 25, 2018). It is a very interesting debate where m.k. aka Eucharistic Angel and Timothy P hold nothing back.
Let the reader decide who wins and who lost.
Remember MoJo, Satan always comes as a Eucharistic Angel of light.
In the peace of Christ,
R. Zell (solasymbolic.wordpress.com and the Zell Challenge Channel: https://youtu.be/OeOfW_gI61M )
RZ: This debate will be made public when Timothy, completes his last comment today (March 25, 2018).
MK: Let the reader beware that my opponent’s closing statement may be likened to the pages found in “Gone With the Wind”, so I highly advise taking a wake-up pill before exposing your sensitive eyeballs to what lies ahead.
Yawn. Only in MoJo world. I’m not your opponent MoJo. Christ Jesus is your opponent.
See Mojo, you, for some reason think you are Satan’s secret weapon against the body of Christ, His Bride the Church we called Catholic.
The Gnostics had Ignatius.
The Arians had Athanasius.
The Nestorians had Cyril.
And MoJo has me.
I was praying the scales would fall from your eyes after Timothy spanked the monkey. MoJo, aka Satan’s Accordion Monkey, you need an exorcism.
I warned you MoJo, that eating the unblessed, unconsecrated bread of which Jesus, by his very hand, gives Judas, you would become spiritually dead.
You are the walking dead. You just don’t know it.
MK: Did he ever finish his closing statement, or will it go on forever? I never even read it and can no longer access that page.
MoJo, you are such a card. Too bad you aren’t playing with a full deck. You went all in with a pair of Aces and picked up a pair of 8’s. We call that the
protestantdead mans hand. Timothy drew a Royal Flush.
RZ: Timothy drew a Royal Flush [in the debate]
MK: Quit talking about how great Tim was and show us how to access the debate!
Timothy is working on the final nail in your coffin. And by the way I’m not talking I’m typing.
RZ: Timothy is working on the final nail in your coffin.
MK: Readers to this website will notice that RZ, the moderator of my debate with TP, has handed a bouquet of roses to my opponent and declared him the winner of the debate…BEFORE my opponent has even finished his concluding statement (which was, the last time I looked, inexcusably the length of a small novel). Kind of reminds me of the ludicrous Roman dogma that asks us to believe that Jesus Christ gave himself in sacrifice to God at the Last Supper… BEFORE he went to the cross. That preposterous notion is only one of the MANY nails in the Catholic coffin that seals its fate as a false gospel, and there is nothing my opponent can say to justify it except to assert that “The RCC says it’s true, I believe it and that settles it.”
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
MK….Since you really never quote the Bible in full here is God’s actual words from the Gospel of Luke,…
The Last Supper…Chapter 22 14-20
14When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles. 15He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover* with you before I suffer, 16for, I tell you, I shall not eat it [again] until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”i 17Then he took a cup,* gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I tell you [that] from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19* j Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN FOR YOU; do this in memory of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the NEW COVENANT IN MY BLOOD, WHICH WILL BE SHED FOR YOU.”
Basically if Jesus was going to use a METAPHOR he would have used the Lamb sitting on the table in front of him since that is the sacrifice of the Passover. Jesus Sacrifice went back in time and it also goes forward in time. It did not stand still in a moment in time. Jesus is the High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek which goes all the way back to Genesis 14:18-20 when Abraham was know as Abram…keep searching your bible look in I Samuel 13 Psalm 110:1-10 Matthew 22:44; 26:26-28 Luke 22:19; Mark 14:22 John 6:53 Acts 2:34 I Corinthians 11:23-25 Hebrews 4:14-15; 5:6; 5:10; 6:19-20; 7:1-21. Revelation 1:6….do you see the connection…oh my priests happen all the way to the Book of Revelation…You miss the point of the New Testament if you miss the point of the Eucharist…Why? New Covenant = Books of the New Testament…Old Covenant = Books of the Old Testament…
Look in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11 23-27…Hard words indeed for a Metaphorical person like yourself
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, 24and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.*
Jesus did not lie…if the bread remain just bread and the wine remains just wine..you would never have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord…
You see no one really needs your words to tell them what they can actually read for myself in full context….
OX: Since you really never quote the Bible in full here is God’s actual words from the Gospel of Luke
MK: Oh stop it. No one on Earth ever quotes “THE BIBLE IN FULL” in speech or in writing as that would be an impossible task. But that is the impression you leave, so it must be dismissed. Second, you do not provide any examples from something… I WROTE…. which omitted something the Bible DID say. You simply quote Scripture but do not equate it with any quote…I GAVE… to prove I was misleading, so your complaint is dismissed a second time.
OX: The Last Supper…Chapter 22 14-20…”When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles. He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover* with you
MK: And as the reader will see when my debate with TP is posted, I scolded my opponent for believing that Jesus ATE HIMSELF at the Last Supper. Such is pure nonsense. That Catholics believe they eat the Creator of the universe is bad enough. To think that Jesus ATE his own self, is lunacy beyond measure.
OX: “for I tell you [that] from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
MK: Do you need glasses? The liquid is referred to as “fruit of the vine” and not BLOOD, and this, AFTER the supposed “consecration”.
Conclusion? He gave them FRUIT OF THE VONE to drink, period, end of story. No wasn’t that easy?
OX: “This cup is the NEW COVENANT IN MY BLOOD, WHICH WILL BE SHED FOR YOU.”
MK: No one on Earth believes the actual cup was the new covenant, but was a figure of speech FOR the new covenant.
Perhaps you need to lie down with a cold washcloth on your forehead.
OX: “Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN FOR YOU”
MK: Yes. “WHICH WILL BE” (i.e. FUTURE TENSE) and not at the Last Supper BEFORE he went to the cross as your false church teaches.
OX: “This cup is the NEW COVENANT IN MY BLOOD, WHICH WILL BE SHED FOR YOU.”
MK: So what?…..”WHICH WILL BE SHED” (i.e., the next day, FUTURE TENSE, on Calvary) and not at the Last Supper as your false church teaches!
OX: Basically if Jesus was going to use a METAPHOR he would have used the Lamb sitting on the table in front of him since that is the sacrifice of the Passover.
MK: Essentially, HE DID JUST THAT! Jesus is already christened the passover lamb metaphorically OUTSIDE of the Last Supper account (1 Cor 5:7) and so was under no obligation to “actually say so” at the L.S. Besides, the apostles would have already known that Jesus was the “lamb of God” prior to the L.S., courtesy of John the Baptist, so the passover lamb at table, whether the apostles realized it or not, was DEFINITELY symbolic. Moreover, everything at table was incredibly rich in symbolism when you stop to think of it…(which you obviously haven’t).
They would have eaten and used…
*** Moror (bitter herbs)… representing the bitterness of Egyptian slavery.
*** Unleavened bread (matzah)… representing the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt, for they couldn’t wait for the bread to rise.
*** Charoseth (mixture of chopped apples, nuts, wine & cinnamon)… representing the mortar used by the Israelite slaves to make bricks.
*** Ceremonial cups. Different cups were used to represent the various phases of the Exodus.
*** The Passover Lamb. The blood of that sacrifice was put over their doorposts so that the death angel would pass over that household. The unfolding chapters of the New Testament remind us that since Christ our passover lamb has been sacrificed, the wrath of God “passes over” us who trust in him and walk in newness of life.
Finally, the disciples would have had good cause to react symbolically to drinking literal blood. First of all, they were forbidden to drink it to begin with! (Gen 9:4; Deut 12:23, Lev 17:14). Second, the disciples would have understood this against the backdrop of the blood sacrifices of the old covenant (Exodus 24:8). And that sacrifice was blood from a sacrificial victim and NOT a living person, as was Jesus sitting right there in front of them. That Peter did not ask any questions is eloquent testimony that he could not possibly have taken Christ literally.
OX: Jesus’ sacrifice went back in time and it also goes forward in time. It did not stand still in a moment in time.
MK: OH YES IT DID stand still in a moment in time. Everyone knows you cannot grab an event from antiquity and fast forward it into the future except in science fiction. The only way the episode at Calvary reaches back in time and forward in time is that the merits of that sacrifice were applied to those before Christ came along, and to us, who came after him. There is NO SUCH THING as a past event being “made present” or “re-presented” as the catechism erroneously teaches by her slick and deceitful use of vocabulary.
OX: Look in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11 23-27…Hard words indeed for a Metaphorical person like yourself
MK: The reader will recall how Mr. Ox accused me of omitting to mentioning things from the Text which would supposedly nullify my point. Yet here, he does that very thing! The words of 1 Cor 11 are not hard words at all when we see what Mr. Ox has OMITTED to report…which nullifies HIS point; namely, that when we read yonder in 1 Cor 12:27, we discover that…
“You ***ARE*** the body of Christ”
represents, metaphorically, the members individually, just as the broken bread in Christ’s hands at the Last Supper was used metaphorically to represent Christ’s broken body which was to occur shortly thereafter..
You ***ARE***… refuted.
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
MK….Your theology is a little off…Catholics do not believe they are metaphorically part of the Body of Christ…We are part of the Mystical Body of Christ…We were baptized into Christ’s life, passion, death, resurrection and ascension. Our work is Christ’s work. I think you really need to read up on God, grace and faith. Oh by the way God exists outside time…you may want to explore that also.
It seems you are just a metaphoric Christian…what ever that means? Are you an idol?
Your are again refuted by your own false statement and lack of basic knowledge. .
Again…we are still waiting on your response to adding and omitting words to one verse from the Book of Revelation…Here it is again in case you missed it…
“Also your silence on Luther, the version of the bible you use and your nondefense of your misquoting The Book of Revelation proves you are a false witness. You can’t even admit you made a mistake. It is very sad.
MK: “Come OUT of [the Roman Catholic Church] my people, lest you share in her sins” (Rev 18:4).
This is found nowhere in any version of any publically known version of the Bible and specifically condemned by the Book of Revelation itself.
Remember you refute yourself by your own false statements and arrogant prideful posts.”
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
You should really stop and think before you respond with nonsense. All Passover meals have Four Cups…so your reading of Luke is in error…
1. The Kiddush Cup – Blessing of the Feast Day-“I will take you out…”
2. The Haggadah cup -Proclamation (Luke 22:17)
3. The berakah cup-Cup of Blessing –Redemption (Luke 22:20)-consecrated into Christ’s Blood.
4. The hallel cup –Cup of Consummation –The Kingdom of God was at hand…Consumed by Jesus on the Cross.
John 19: 29-30- There was a vessel filled with common wine. So they put a sponge soaked in wine on a sprig of hyssop and put it up to his mouth. When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, “It is finished.” And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
Only One Cup was transformed into the Blood of Christ-Luke 22:20 as was testified by Paul.
1 CORINTHIANS Chapter 10: 16-17
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than him?
The Lamb must be consumed at the Passover…same with the Lord’s Supper…
Exodus 12:8- “They will consume its meat that same night, eating it roasted with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.”
Jesus is the Lamb of God and must be consumed in order for Christians to live fully in the New Covenant.
Revelation Chapter 5:6-14
Then I saw standing in the midst of the throne and the four living creatures and the elders a Lamb* that seemed to have been slain. He had seven horns and seven eyes; these are the [seven] spirits of God sent out into the whole world. He came and received the scroll from the right hand of the one who sat on the throne.
When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones. They sang a new hymn: “Worthy are you to receive the scroll and to break open its seals, for you were slain and with your blood you purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue, people and nation. You made them a kingdom and priests for our God, and they will reign on earth.”
I looked again and heard the voices of many angels who surrounded the throne and the living creatures and the elders. They were countless* in number, and they cried out in a loud voice:
“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches, wisdom and strength, honor and glory and blessing.” Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, everything in the universe, cry out: “To the one who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor, glory and might, forever and ever.”
You seem to accept that Jesus was God even though when he walked on this earth he was very much a man also. If you took him to the doctor and had him examined, the doctor would say he was just a man based on scientific evidence alone…to believe he was God comes from FAITH ALONE. You have to accept the witness testimony passed on from generation to generation.
I will pray that you give up your Calvinistic bitter posts. You do realize Calvin only came up with his Double Predestination doctrine so he could win arguments in his own mind…His basic thought pattern was I am predestined for Heaven and you don’t agree with me therefore you are going to hell. He always came across as bitter and arrogant. He was just like you…never apologized or admitted he was wrong. I would suggest you rethink that whole approach. It really doesn’t put you in a good light.
OX: You should really stop and think before you respond with nonsense.
MK: Oh be quiet. Everything I’ve said is perfectly sane and coherent and I have refuted each and every one one of your arguments.
OX: All Passover meals have Four Cups
MK: Which does not detract from anything I’ve said thus far. You are bringing forth data that is pointless to the discussion.
OX: Only one cup was transformed into the Blood of Christ-Luke 22:20 as was testified by Paul [The berakah cup-Cup of Blessing –Redemption (Luke 22:20)-consecrated into Christ’s Blood]
MK: Previously I told you that when Jesus said he would no longer drink from the fruit of the vine, he identified the contents as just that, “fruit of the vine” and not blood, proving no transubstantiation had taken place. If it is your position that he was NOT using the consecrated cup and that’s why he called the liquid “fruit of the vine”, then I would like to know by what criteria do you conclude he was not using the consecrated cup? That ought to be easy. Answer me or forever hold your peace. FYI, according to RC theology, when he took the cup in Luke 22:17 and told them to take it, THAT CUP WAS SUPPOSEDLY the transubstantiation cup which in verse 18 he proceeds to call “fruit of the vine.”
OX: 1 CORINTHIANS Chapter 10: 16-17….the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
MK: How do you like that? The one place in the epistles where Catholics think transubstantiation is spoken of, and oh my! BREAD IS USED IN A SYMBOLIC MANNER!
You are refuted.
OX: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons.”
MK: Since everyone knows demons do not have actual blood, then both cups spoken here must be symbolic. If there is no actual blood in “the cup of demons”, then there is no actual blood in the “cup of the Lord”.
You are refuted.
OX: The Lamb must be consumed at the Passover…same with the Lord’s Supper…
Exodus 12:8- “They will consume its meat that same night, eating it roasted with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.”
Jesus is the Lamb of God and must be consumed in order for Christians to live fully in the New Covenant.
MK: NO HE DOES NOT need to be consumed. First of all, the slick trick of saying I cannot “live fully” without ingesting the physical body parts of the Messiah is just plain stupid. Second, we are told that the real physical presence was going away over 10 times, which makes the alleged presence of Christ in the Eucharist, just plain stupid in light of the fact that what he DID promise was the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit and NOT the physical anatomy of the Lord Jesus Christ. As I wrote in the essay above, which you didn’t read, “Catholics always like to tell us that since the passover lamb was eaten, we ought to “eat Jesus” because he was the passover lamb. But wait a minute now. What they NEVER admit is that there is an equally satisfying alternative; namely, that since the sin offering was never to be eaten (Leviticus 4) and Jesus was obviously a sin offering, we then do NOT have to literally eat Jesus!
Thus, we have two choices: Either eat Jesus the passover lamb, or do not eat Jesus the sin offering. We choose the latter based on Trent being exposed as a non-prophet organization”….among many other reasons, not the least of which is that your eerie metaphysical christ makes a fast EXIT after you swallow the wafer, making your “real presence” doctrine, for all practical purposes, USELESS (CCC 1377).
You are refuted.
OX: You have to accept the witness testimony passed on from generation to generation.
MK: NO WE DON’T. The early church does not offer the support Catholics claim. See here…
Also, you forget that the early church was quick to fall away from everything they had been taught — and so Rome’s claim that her particular church would be infallible and preserved from error is categorically false (Acts 20:29-30; Galatians 1:6; 1 Tim 4:1-3, 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Thess 2:3-11; 2 Pet 2:1-3; Rev 1-3). Too many factors combine to desecrate your thesis that we ***MUST*** accept everything passed down from one generation to the next.
You are refuted.
OX: You do realize Calvin only came up with his Double Predestination doctrine so he could win arguments in his own mind
MK: Oh, so now you can read the mind of someone who is long dead???
Effective immediately, your credibility is henceforth in the mud due to your phony mind-reading capabilities, as well as the slick attempt to change topics. Knowing that you’re failing miserably in defending the Eucharist, you change the subject to predestination hoping no one will notice.
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
Again you come back with nonsense. I quoted Luke specifically because it clearly show two cups and you as usual assume, misinterpret, or take things out of context. I did not originally comment on the cups of Passover. I just quoted Luke and you went off on your usual assumptions and bloviating.
Let me clearly show you a great example of your dishonesty, I quote 1 CORINTHIANS Chapter 10: 16-22 “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than him?
You immediately skip over 1 CORINTHIANS Chapter 10: 16 and focus on verse 17 only. Paul in one verse (1 CORINTHIANS Chapter 10: 16) completely disagrees with your interpretation of the Last Supper and refutes your whole argument. You don’t address it. I makes you look dishonest. We are still waiting on the response about your misquoting of the Book of Revelation.
It really just proves you are a false witness of Christ. Are you really Muslim? You basically believe the same thing as them.
Here is your lesson plan for the day if you are christian…Read the 1 CORINTHIANS Chapter 10: 1-15 and reflect upon it…then read Revelation Chapter 17 and again reflect upon it.
You do realize the arguments you are making against the Catholic Church come from First Century Pagan Rome. Christians were atheist because they practiced a superstition. They worship a man put to death on a cross…they even practice cannibalism because they eat flesh covered in flour. So when you read through Revelation Chapter 17 focus on the word Babylon…it is historically interpreted as Pagan Rome.
So the Church reputed you right from the beginning, it’s in the bible, Trent only reaffirmed it.
OX: We are still waiting on the response about your misquoting of the Book of Revelation.
MK: Kindly shut your lying mouth about my supposed misquote. Anyone with a thinking brain knows the quote was completely accurate with the brackets I included. If you continue to act in such an ignorant manner, I may have to actually call you a …dumb ox.
I won’t even deal with the rest of what you say because it is nothing but wild-eyed Scripture twisting and pure bunk.
You should at least know that what I say is extremely relevant, if only for the fact that the debate I had with TP is not yet posted because the man is unable to finish is closing statement. He’s obviously stumped on one of the points I made and can’t get the help he needs from any of his close associates.
Likewise, if I were to debate you, your loss would be just as catastrophic as TP’s.
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
I will pray for you because it is obvious you are suffering from psychological projection. It seems to be your primary defense mechanism so you can actually live with yourself. It is very sad to watch. You probably don’t know what psychological projection is so I will try and explain. It happens when you have a whole bunch of uncomfortable, embarrassing and annoying emotions that you can’t deal with and your unconscious thoughts take over to deal with them. Your emotions are projected on to other people unjustly, so that other people become carriers of your own flaws. As a result of externalizing your emotions, you basically perceive faults in others that are not real, you create a false self-image that portrays you as “the victim” or “the good/righteous person” when in reality you are not.
You called me a liar when in fact everyone can see you are the dishonest one with every post you make.
Here is just one example…there are many more…
Search any bible for the MK made up quote from the Book of Revelation: “Come OUT of [the Roman Catholic Church] my people, lest you share in her sins” (Rev 18:4).
It doesn’t exist in any version of any Bible. It is clearly a purposeful and dishonest misquoting of The Book of Revelation because you have had many opportunities to correct it even when you were told it was specifically forbidden in the Book of Revelation. Here is the correct full verse:
“Then I heard another voice from heaven say: “Depart from her, my people, so as not to take part in her sins and receive a share in her plagues”
You omitted 16 words and added four. Even if I give you the beginning part of the verse and the ending (15 words), you still omitted “her”. Your psychological projection removed “her” and added [the Roman Catholic Church] with no reference point, but your addition makes the quote basically useless since the next two words are “my people”, which is the Holy Catholic Church. Basically the MK additions and omissions make the quote gibberish and demonstrates you have a deep, unabashed, and hateful prejudice.
All you had to do was apologize and admit you were wrong and your emotions wouldn’t have gotten the best of you or was it your pride?
Either you are suffering from psychological projection or it seems you think Christ died on the cross so you can go around judging others unjustly. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you just don’t know what you are doing…the other option is not pretty.
I will prayer for your health.
I stopped reading your slop after the first sentence so you wasted your time.
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
Actually…no you proved my point….
Is it on yet?
or is that the password protected entry?
That is an awful lot of words to contradict the word of the Lord. So Either we take the words of Jesus literally or not, all or nothing?
John 6:50-65 is very clear, when Jesus said
Amen, amen dico vobis: nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis.
Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, habet vitam æternam: et ego resuscitabo eum in novissimo die.
in the old Greek texts the word is FAGE not eat, but gnaw (like a beast)
Titrisol says: That is an awful lot of words to contradict the word of the Lord.
M.K. Excuse me, but if I had written only a few lines, you would say, “how dare you contradict the word of the Lord by your stupid few sentences”. Then, if I write a lot, you will tell me, as you do here, “That is an awful lot of words to contradict the word of the Lord”. So the Catholic game-plan is to condemn their opponents either way. Oh no you don’t. I must expose your duplicity.
Anyway, what I am doing is simply “rightly dividing the word of truth”. And there is a truckload of evidence to prove I am correct, none of which you dealt with.
T: So either we take the words of Jesus literally or not, all or nothing?
M.K: Well excuse me, but that is exactly what your church teaches…and is, as a matter of fact, exactly what Jesus Christ meant. It was either one way or the other. Jesus was NOT speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Now as for the official RC position, Trent called any opposition to the literal view, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. It was all or nothing for them, just as it is all or nothing with us.
T: John 6:50-65 is very clear…in the old Greek texts the word is FAGE, not eat, but gnaw (like a beast).
M.K: First of all, it is… “very clear”… that you did not interact with even one point made in the essay, so your response fades into nothingness. Second, as to the current “gnawing argument”, it is BOGUS.
I am quite aware that Roman Catholic foot-soldiers have made some noise about Jesus switching from the word “eat” (esthio) to the more graphic “to chew or gnaw” (trogo) in John 6:54-58. They say this switch in terminology proves that Jesus was speaking literally rather than metaphorically. Karl Keating supposes, without proof, that the word “to chew” (trogo) “is not the language of metaphor” (“Catholicism & Fundamentalism”, p. 247). We simply ask, “Why not?” — Why would a switch in terminology demand we conclude a literal understanding rather than a metaphorical one?
Apparently, Catholics believe the word “chew” cannot be the language of metaphor because it is far more graphic or vivid than the more mundane “to eat.” The truth is, however, there is nothing intrinsically literal about the word “chew” that would lead us into the territory of Transubstantiation, and thus, this hypothesis is unwarranted. What you do not consider is…
A. Esthio is used in all of the Last Supper passages (“take and eat”, not chew!).
B. By the time of John’s gospel, the Greek word for “chew” (trogo) had become SYNONYMOUS with the ordinary word for “eat” (esthio). Yes, originally, “trogo” was used of animals and conveyed chewing, or mastication. But over time, the word had gradually begun to replace the more common “to eat” (esthio). According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “John…seems to follow a usage, which generally replaces esthio with trogo. (Leonhard Goppelt, Gerhard Friedrich, editor, Vol. 8, p. 236-237).
C. The simple possibility of stylistic variance. For example, when one wishes to make the same theological point, we note Lazarus being described as “asleep”, but who was, in reality, dead. We also observe in John 21:15-17 that Jesus asks Peter three times, “Do you love me?” In the first two questions, He uses the Greek word agapeo for love. In the last question, he switches to phileo. Greek scholars have long noted that there is NO essential difference between the terms and are used interchangeably. In the very same passage, Jesus also varies his metaphors. “Tend my sheep” is used twice. “Feed my lambs” is used once. Why the switch? Once again, the simple solution is probably the best solution. Both metaphors use pastoral imagery to make the same theological point; namely, that Peter is given a pastoral responsibility for the flock. Therefore, the difference between tending sheep and feeding lambs is most likely a stylistic variance, rather than what the Roman church would have us believe; namely, a THEOLOGICAL variance, which we reject. When all is said and done, the variance between “to eat” and “to chew” does not in any way imply that the object of our chewing is the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ!
You are refuted.
peace be with you
Yes those are my church teachings and I will stick with them.
Thanks for making it clear
MoJo, its R. Zell, you claim you refute people before you even get a response.
Again MoJo, When Jesus says Take, eat, this is My Body, he does literally mean Take, Eat, This is My Body. The Bread of Life Discourse is revealed at the Last Supper and confirmed on the Road to Emmaus. You can eat your ritz cracker at your denomination all you want. Just remember that Jesus gave ordinary, unblessed unconsecrated bread to Judas and Satan enters him. That is the only metaphorical bread Jesus gave anybody. That bread is symbolic of spiritual death.
The bread you good people eat at your Catholic Mass is the True Bread which came down from heaven. If you eat that Bread, you will never die as in spiritual death.
MoJo, you stand with the Gnostics who also denied the Holy Eucharist was the flesh of Christ.
So you can eat the symbolic bread of Judas and slowly poison soul against the Catholic Church.
Satan has been trying to destroy the Catholic Church for 2,000 years.
Protestants have been trying to destroy the Catholic Church for 500 years.
Even united, the still can’t destroy the Catholic Church.
But you m.k. aka MoJo, are the secret weapon that will succeed where even Satan has failed.
MoJo says this: 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.
Take, eat, this is My Body sounds like an offering to me. And this is My Body of the New Covenant. Sounds like an offering to me.
Take, Eat, this is My Body sounds like it is His Body. The Bread of Life Discourse is revealed at the Last Supper and confirmed on the Road to Emmaus.
MoJo says: 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…”
That is right MoJo, Jesus did offer himself up to the Father. That is the sacrifice which will end on the cross. The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice starts at the Last Supper and ends on the Cross. There is only one sacrifice and we enter into it and you and your band of Satanic Accordion Monkeys eat that other bread which was given to Satan in John 13:26-27.
MoJo says: 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.
Truly, Truly MoJo, Christ said I am the Bread of Life. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you;
Again MoJo, you deny the very words of Christ, just like those first Protestors(ants) we meet in John 6:66.
RZ: Take, eat, this is My Body sounds like an offering to me.
M: Then you have a tin ear. Produce any Bible commentary on planet earth which comments on that passage that “this sounds like” Jesus is offering himself to God the Father before he went to the cross. Needless to say, we will not hear back from you.
RZ: The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice starts at the Last Supper and ends on the Cross.
M: That entire concept is totally unbiblical. At the very least, the logical thinking person would not be out of order to say that the sacrifice could conceievably “start” in the GARDEN where he was, as it were, “sweating blood”. But certainly not at the Supper, let alone that any sacrifice was going on at table, or even more outrageous, that the supposed sacrifice going on at table was the “SAME” sacrifice that went on at the cross the following day (precisely what your church teaches).
When will the madness end?
RZ: There is only one sacrifice and we enter into it
M: “Entering into it” at the Last Supper before it even happened yet is nothing but esoteric language conjured up by Roman Catholic word-purveyors meant to camouflage that you don’t even know what your talking about.
RZ: [You say] 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.
M: That is correct. And what is your response?
RZ: Christ said I am the Bread of Life. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you;
M: Which is a non-response and does not address the issue of Trent, under the claimed guidance of the Holy Spirit, putting a word in Christ’s mouth which does not belong.
You are refuted.
To which of the calvinist congregations do you belong?
asking for a friend
Tea Tree Oil: To which of the calvinist congregations do you belong? I’m asking for a friend
MK: Isn’t that a coincidence! My friend also wanted me to ask you the same thing. To which of the many Catholic denominations do YOU belong may I ask? I trust you understand that with so many Catholic splinter groups out there, it makes one head spin. I tire of all the scandal and disunity, don’t you?
Could it be that you belong to that lovely little group called “Catholics 4 a free Choice”?
Or are you one of those heady-minded liberal RC’s?
Might you be a conservative RC?
And what say you concerning those nasty, but lovable, “New Age” RC’s, combining their magic spells with a sprinkling of popery?
Oh my, and did you read about those “Eclectic” RC’s recently?
Lest we forget….how about those Ultra-Traditionalist RC’s? So rebellious (yet oh so pious) wouldn’t you agree?
Are you one those?
Or are you one of the many right or left wing RC’s? Who knows WHAT those little darlings will come up with next!
Or perhaps you could be one of the supporters of a recent Associated Press photo of those growling ladies protesting outside the Vatican with a big white bed sheet held from one end to the other, reading…”Since the boys can’t do the job right, it’s time to hire the girls!” Shame on them.
The Catholic splinter group problem is so severe, that those intolerable “Rebel” RC’s were profiled in TIME Magazine, 9/7/87, with an article entitled, “JPII’s fiesty flock: Catholics Going Their Own Way”.
Sigh. Such disunity. Tsk, tsk. It saddens me so. I almost want to cry.
So let me know when you want to tell me which particular Catholic sect YOU belong to, and then I will be happy to tell you mine.
None of the above
I’m just a catholic boy, who thinks that he is not-worthy of God’s graces
Nor do I claim to have authority to interpret scripture or decide who is right or wrong
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
Dear M.K. After reviewing your tome, it appears from your arguments you lack some basic understanding of Church history and Devine Revelation. So let me explain the basics. The Deposit of Faith is the Church’s possession of the entirety of Devine Revelation, an unchangeable truth with Jesus Christ as its source. Devine Revelation is passed on in the Church from generation to generation though Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, not as two sources but as one source. Why is this true? If you truly think about it, Sacred Scripture could not be defined without Sacred Tradition. Tradition comes from the Latin- trado, tradere which means to hand over, to deliver, to bequeath. Sacred Tradition sets the doctrine of what books are in the table of contents of the Bible and the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Sacred Tradition also defines the infallibility of the Church, the belief that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from errors that would corrupt essential doctrines. A basic given in all of this, as with all thing on this earth, God places people in charge and gives them authority over the Church on earth. Every section of the Church has a teacher. At the top of the authority chain is the magisterium and the Pope. Their job is to teach the faith and to preserve and protect, not change, the unchangeable truths in church doctrine.
In order to illustrate how God’s divine plan for all people includes human authority, I will give you a practical example. At birth, people enter this earth in a specific place and time and from that moment they are placed under various authorities. Usually these authorities are their parents, a local government and a national government. As they grow into adults, those people with authority over them have a duty to protect and teach them. If as an adult, an individual decides that he does not want to recognize the authority over him. He can then proceed to deny certain laws and in a very public way show and flaunt his distain. Eventually he will more than likely be caught by said authority and be branded a criminal. This will happen whether he believes in the power of the authority or not. This same scenario also applies to Christians at their baptism, teaching authorities are placed over them and they can decide to accept a doctrine or not. If the doctrine they choose to disregard is an unchangeable truth and they are very public about it, the church has no choice but to condemn them and brand them as heretics.
The hypothesis to your tome is if you can prove one infallible doctrine proclaimed by the Pope wrong you can destroy all the teachings of the Catholic Church. You then proceeded to try and disprove one of the oldest and most historically documented doctrines of the Church, the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Transubstantiation is only a philosophical way to explain the real presence of Christ in what appears to be bread and wine after consecration. If you did any research at all on the topic, you would have found that this doctrine is found in all ancient orthodox churches and some protestant churches, not just the Catholic Church. The method and reasons you tried to use to prove your point was Sacred Scripture along with the doctrine on the inerrancy of the Scripture as infallibly approved by the Pope at the Second Vatican Council. So your proof is basically to take two or three unchangeable truths of the church and use your own twenty first century personal interpretation to make them seems at odds with one another. Basically your interpretation is that Jesus made a mistake at the last supper when he said “This is my body” and “This is my blood”. He left words out, he should have said “This is a symbol of my body” and “This is a symbol of my blood”. He wasn’t clear enough. We all know people can misinterpret what the meaning of “is” is. Your basic claim is that a majority of all Christians going back to the time of Christ were and are wrong.
Here is the bottom line of your assertions: You don’t believe in the real presence and will not “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood”. I understand this saying is too hard for you and as the disciples in John 6:66 you are walking away grumbling. You will notice that Jesus did not stop them and say no you don’t understand I was speaking metaphorically. Nope, he meant what he said and just let them walk. The doctrine of the real presence is the unchangeable truth in this case and you can choose to accept it or deny it. As you grow in your faith, my hope is you choose to accept it.
D.O. After reviewing your tome, it appears from your arguments you lack some basic understanding of Church history and Devine Revelation. So let me explain the basics.
M.K. I already know the basics thank you. I dare say that if I was given a multiple choice or essay exam on what you believe, I would pass with flying colors. Now while you did take the time to respond, you did not in fact, interact with any of my specific arguments, let alone disprove them, so all my objections remain unchallenged. You did however, take the time to switch the subject to “tradition” and this that and the other thing, but at the end of the day, your arguments disappear into nothingness. Nevertheless, I will give you the courtesy of a response to let you know that all your objections are easily confronted with just a little legwork.
D.O. Devine Revelation is passed on in the Church from generation to generation though Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, not as two sources but as one source.
M.K. No. “On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son”. The buck stops at the word of God, which may only be found in Holy Writ. Jesus said we will be judged exclusively by his word alone in John 12:48, and since his word does not say one blessed word about Transubstantiation, it cannot be true. The only reason you want divine revelation to continue is so that you can validate all your doctrines which are NOT found in the Text, then tell us they are from God so that at the end of the day, all of these “addendums” become necessary for salvation. We reject this scenario. Paul threw a fit in the book of Galatians when he discovered the Judaizers were wanting to add even ONE thing to the gospel. Catholicism has added FAR MORE, and so we use common sense to conclude he would be just as furious with papal pretentious as he was with the Judaizers.
D.O. Tradition comes from the Latin- trado, tradere which means to hand over, to deliver, to bequeath.
M.K. But those traditions which Scripture refers to had ALREADY been “handed down” (past tense), which they were “taught” (past tense), and “heard” (past tense) as we read in 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15 and 2 Tim 2:2. This in NO way constitutes proof for a FUTURE tense of unfolding revelation delivered “viva voce”! Only Scripture is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos), Tradition is not, period, end of story. What you omit to say is that the word “tradition” occurs 14 times in the N.T. Eight of them come from Christ and each reaction is negative and inflammatory (Matt 15:2, 3, 6; Mk 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13). Peter’s one reference is no kinder (1 Peter 1:18). Paul makes five references, and two of them get thumbs down (Col 2:8, Gal 1:14). That leaves us with three positive statements on which your argument hinges (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15 and 2 Tim 2:2). But I have already proved these verses do not support your theory, so you are left up a creek without a paddle.
D.O. Sacred Tradition sets the doctrine of what books are in the table of contents of the Bible
M.K. Ummm….I’ll be happy to talk about the table of contents when you can tell me why your tradition is unable to set forth how many times the Pope has spoken infallibly. Or why your tradition cannot tell us exactly how many verses your church has infallibly defined? Or exactly how many unwritten traditions ARE THERE so some “dumb ox” like me could know I was properly keeping them all if I wanted to become a Catholic? Thus, if your tradition is unable to answer these questions, why in the world should I believe your table of contents (which by the way, every non-Catholic rejects for far too many reasons to list here because it includes the Apocrypha).
D.O. [Tradition tells us of] the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
M.K. No it doesn’t. The word of God sets forth that claim by itself. For starters, I would refer you to all 176 verses of Psalm 119. Or how about, “Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words have I made a covenant with thee and with Israel” (Ex 34:27). Because God made our brains with severe limitations, human memory is too untrustworthy to rely on oral transmission over the long haul. It results in inaccurate and fluctuating data, and was never intended to supply a common norm for future reference. This is precisely why revelation was committed to writing, for we do often read of the instruction to, “take a letter”, which confirms the general priciple and legacy of inerrancy (Ex 17:14; 24:4, 34:1, Deut 13:4; 31:9; 26; Josh 24:26; Ps 102:18; Isa 8:1, 30:8, 34:16, Jer 25:13, 30:2, 36:1-32, 36:2-3, 51:50, Rev 1:11,19; 21:5).
Moreover, the Bible never displays any sort of unwritten and nebulous tradition to be on the same level as Scripture, and in fact denies it outright by telling us he has magnified his word even above his very name (Psalm 138). This leaves no room for a “theopnuestos” tradition equal to his sacred word, now face it. Repeatedly, the admonition points to the written record, “for after the tenor of these words have I made a covenant with thee…” (Ex 34:27).
D.O. Sacred Tradition also defines the infallibility of the Church
M.K. Actually, it was only in 1870 that the world was let in on the secret of the infallibility of the RCC when the Pope self-appointed himself infallible, upon which he read back into antiquity the infallible status of all his predecessors and ecumenical councils to boot.
D.O. the Holy Spirit preserves the Church from errors that would corrupt essential doctrines.
M.K. On the contrary, one example of how the Holy Spirit does not preserve the church at Rome from error is that Trent threw under the bus, the command to partake of both bread and wine in Communion. “This holy synod, taught by the Holy Spirit…declares that lay people…are not obliged by any divine command to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds, and that it can in no way be doubted without injury to faith that Communion under either kind is sufficient to them for salvation. For although Christ the Lord at his last supper instituted this sacrament with the form of bread and wine…nevertheless that institution and tradition do not aim at this, that all believers in Christ are bound by the commandment of the Lord to receive both kinds. Neither is it rightly concluded [from the Last Supper or] from the discourse in John 6…that Communion under both kinds is commanded by the Lord” (“Concerning Communion Under Both Kinds”, ch 1).
To be sure, these are not the words of those under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but rather of mad scientists on the verge of an explosion in the laboratory! The Lord Jesus Christ said the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35) and the Council of Trent has indeed done just that! No reasons, no matter how pious they may sound, can justify mutilating the Lord’s Supper into the choice of either bread or wine. Jesus did not give us that option! Regardless of what he may have intended at supper, the record is clear that he said what he meant and meant what he said, and that means that BOTH were to be taken until kingdom come.
D.O. Basically your interpretation is that Jesus made a mistake at the last supper when he said “This is my body” and “This is my blood”.
M.K. Under no circumstances whatsoever did I ever convey Jesus made a mistake! My point was that TRENT made a mistake!
D.O. [You imply that] he left words out, he should have said “This is a symbol of my body” and “This is a symbol of my blood”. He wasn’t clear enough.
M.K. Under no circumstance whatsoever do I think Jesus was not “clear enough” —and I gave more than enough evidence why we should understand him metaphorically in John 6 and the Last Supper. It is, in fact, the Roman Catholic Church who thinks he was not clear enough by proposing to us one unbiblical concept about the Last Supper after another, such as Jesus giving himself up in sacrifice at the dinner table BEFORE he went to the cross, and many other nonsense statements— all because the Bible simply doesn’t come right out and say what Catholic dignitaries want it to say.
D.O. You then proceeded to try and disprove one of the oldest and most historically documented doctrines of the Church, the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
M.K. Hard as this may be for you to believe, Jesus himself disproves his real presence in the wafer because he told us no less than 10 times that his “real presence” would be “going away”, as I told you in the essay. Added to that, he gives us warning to “BELIEVE NOT” those who claim his physical presence is “overhere or over there”, and since Catholicism tells us, “Look, he is in the Eucharist”, we will NOT believe them according to the Savior’s plain words, so the case is closed and the “Real Presence” is a fraud. Jesus promised us his presence via the Holy Spirit, period, end of story. The R.P. serves no practical purpose at all, and in fact, the RCC says the R.P. makes a fast EXIT 30 seconds after the wafer is injested (CCC 1367). True Christians, on the other hand, have the R.P. via the Holy Spirit 24/7. Catholics, by their own admission, do not.
D.O. Transubstantiation is only a philosophical way to explain the real presence of Christ in what appears to be bread and wine after consecration.
M.K. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men” (Col 2:8).
D.O. You will notice [in chapter 6] that Jesus did not stop them and say no you don’t understand I was speaking metaphorically. Nope, he meant what he said and just let them walk.
M.K. I notice that you are trying to use common sense by observing the behavior of those in the Text. Yet, when I write a 10,000 word essay using Scripture, common sense and reason, you are not impressed.
In any case, your attempt at common sense fails because you have not compared Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor 2:13). Had you done so, you would have discovered that Jesus was under no moral obligation to clarify his point because it was the intentional and EXPRESS will of God that many misunderstand, all for His own good reasons! (Matt 11:25-6; Mk 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, 10:22; John 9:39-41, 12:40, 17:6; Rms 11:7-8). So the fact that he let them walk, is perfectly in line with his agenda.
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
Sacred Scripture tells us “Do not winnow in every wind, or walk along every by-way (as the double-talking sinner does). Be steady in your convictions, and be a person of your word. Be quick to listen, and deliberate in giving an answer. If you understand the matter, give your neighbor an answer, if not, keep your hand over your mouth. Both honor and disgrace come from talking, the tongue is its owner’s downfall. Do not get a name for scandal-mongering, do not set traps with your tongue; for as shame lies in store for the thief, so harsh condemnation awaits the deceitful.” (Sirach, Chapter 5 – 9-15)
MK you present your arguments in a very prideful, self–righteous, arrogant and ungrateful manner. I would suggest you work on your tone and rhetoric. Your repugnancy against the Catholic Church shows a height of ignorance on the Church and its basic teaching that it is shocking to say the least. The Church is the Body of Christ and it consists of all Christians in heaven, on earth and in purgatory. The Church on earth is guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit in all ages. The Catholic Church has and always will preserve, defend and perpetuate the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is not the “traditions of men”, it is the Holy Tradition of the Body of Christ. As for the Sacred Scripture, The Catholic Church declared, collected, reproduced, and always clarified their meaning. The Catholic Church has done this since the time of the apostles and for that alone deserves a little more respect from you. If not for your Catholic forefathers you would not have a bible to purchase, possess or argue with. You owe them some respect and gratitude.
All your arguments are based on your traditions and personal interpretation of Holy Scripture. The Church, through its historical documents as recorded since the time of the apostles, reviewed the historical interpretation of Holy Scriptures on the Eucharist and declares with all clarity that your arguments on transubstantiation are in error. This was historically proclaimed at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 and reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. The Church testifies that Christ was not being metaphoric and has condemned your interpretation of Holy Scriptures as an error long before you presented them on this blog. I would refer you to St. Thomas Aquinas – Summa Theologiae III 75- 77 if you want the scriptural and logical reasons why your arguments are incorrect. If you want to look at the historical documents that back up the proclamations of the Council of Trent, I would refer you to a three volume set called “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by William Jurgens. If you want to prove your point to a catholic, take your interpretations and compare them to the early historical documents that pertain to the Eucharist and find me someone who agrees with your interpretation of Sacred Scripture. If you cannot you have written a river of words without a dribble of thought about what is the true interpretation of the Scriptures. I will also bet if you take the Council of Trent’s proclamations and compare them to the same historical documents you will find they all have roots in the early Church. Even your disparaging remarks about thinking Trent made up taking the Eucharist under either kind is covered. Not all Christian grew up in a free and open society like the United States. If a first or second century Christian was in prison, you really think the Blood of Christ looking like wine would make it past the prison guard? What about the Christians trapped in a Muslim country with little or no wine to be found? Since God has placed you on this faith journey to find the truth, I hope you follow through with this edifying exercise.
Your claim that Jesus gives no authority to the Church, is a complete and utter falsehood. In Matthew Chapter 18, 15 -17, final authority is given to the Church in handling disputes among Christian brothers. It is also exactly how the apostles acted at the Council of Jerusalem in Act Chapter 15, 1-11. Some Christian brothers were following the Holy Scripture at the time and advising new gentile converts they needed to get circumcised. The apostles got together and made a decision under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and Peter proclaimed and ratified the first infallible dogma proclaimed by a Church Council. The Sacred Tradition that was proclaimed at the Council of Jerusalem later became part of Sacred Scripture. Paul also later clarified that baptism is the new circumcision. The Church has proceeded to use this example ever since, so historically you are incorrect. The Pope basically takes the place of Peter in proclaiming the findings. Christians have throughout church history had the right to present their arguments for and against any doctrine to the Church, the Church would then compare the arguments to teaching of the whole Church back to the apostles (this is where the Sacred Tradition part comes from, the dead have a say in the matter, not just you) and a decision will be rendered. Your arguments were presented long ago and found to be a heresy. This means if you chose to continue down the path you are heading you will have a harder time obtaining Eternal Salvation. Much the same way a child told not to play in the street and continues to do so, may or may not, get hit by a car. It is safer for the child to heed the warning and get off the road.
As for the table of contents for the Bible, it is a fact that you cannot and will not find it in the books of the Bible. It is not listed anywhere in the individual Sacred Books, so you have to use Sacred Tradition to come up with one. So you denying Sacred Tradition is like sitting on a chair and taking an axe to it legs. Pretty soon you will be sitting on the floor looking like a fool. Basically your axiom is wrong. Peace dictates that things have a right order…God…creation…Church… preaching, writing, selecting and clarifying by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While on this earth, Jesus and the Apostles preached and taught the faith. They did very little writing. So anytime a New Testament book uses the word “scriptures” they are referring to the Old Testament only and quote mostly from the Septuagint version. Your argument of comparing “scripture with scripture” as if this is some game of one-upmanship is basically a mockery against God. I believe the devil tried it against Jesus in Luke Chapter 4: 10-11 and the answer is now found in Luke Chapter 4: 12 and Deuteronomy Chapter 6:16. “You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.” You might also want to read I Corinthians 10:9, “Let us not test Christ as some of them did, and suffered death by serpents.”
As for your aspersions and judgements toward Catholics and catholic doctrine, they do not show love and are so far off the mark you clearly have no idea what you are talking about in general. Using Sacred Scripture like a blunt force object against Church Dogma is wrong, it basically is a lack of faith in the workings of the Holy Spirit. Much the same way using science as a blunt force object against Sacred Scripture is wrong, since the God of Creation is the God of the Bible. I believe if you follow through on my guidance above you will find the answers you seek and hopefully see past your pride and seek forgiveness and reconciliation. Remember the advice given in Matthew Chapter 7, 1 – 5. “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”
And always be on guard since “Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Proverbs Chapter 16:18.
D.O. Sacred Scripture tells us…… (Sirach, Chapter 5 – 9-15).
MK: The book of Sirach is not “Sacred Scripture”, but you are entitled to your opinion. Nevertheless, I referred to Sirach in the essay, providing further evidence against Transubstantiation, so you have quite a lot of nerve to avoid the evidence therein if you are even going to mention the book at all.
D.O. your present your arguments in a very prideful, self–righteous, arrogant and ungrateful manner.
M.K. Not true. You just don’t like it because I’m confident of my position…. and, may I remind you, there is NO sin in being confident in the power of God’s word? True, confidence does not in and of itself prove that I’m correct, but once again, you have quite a lot of nerve to say ***I*** portray arrogance when we compared Trent calling THEIR opposition, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”.
I don’t think so!
By what measure of logic do you award Trent a gold ribbon for THEIR vocabulary, and think that my vocabulary deservesa dunce cap?
Obviously, you don’t dare answer that question to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, so I will not expect you to.
D.O. I would suggest you work on your tone and rhetoric.
M.K. I already answered for my tone on this very page, beginning with the sentence, “Furthermore, was Jesus “charitable” when he insulted the Pharisees 16 times in Matt 23 alone? ”
D.O. Your repugnancy against the Catholic Church shows a height of ignorance on the Church and its basic teaching that it is shocking to say the least.
M.K. Well first of all, if I am correct in my assessment of the RCC, my “repugnancy” is justified. After all, Jesus says he “HATES” false doctrine in Rev 2:15, and congratulates those who investigate those who claim to be apostles, but are not (Rev 2:15). Second, kindly spare me the complaint of my supposed “ignorance” of RC doctrine. You have as yet to prove it.
D.O. The Church on earth is guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit in all ages.
M.K. I’m afraid that contention is proven false by my argument against Trent at the beginning of the essay, to which you had no response. Let’s take another one for good measure, shall we? How about other comments from Trent wherein they disparage the use of both elements?
D.O. Even your disparaging remarks about thinking Trent made up taking the Eucharist under either kind is covered. Not all Christian grew up in a free and open society like the United States. If a first or second century Christian was in prison, you really think the Blood of Christ looking like wine would make it past the prison guard?
M.K. People in prison is not the point my dear D.O. Trent is essentially saying that Jesus did not even COMMAND it to begin with it! And needless to say, the millions of Catholics each day who partake of only the bread, are NOT IN PRISON….so your defense of Trent must fall to the ground. We read:
“This holy synod, taught by the Holy Spirit…declares that lay people…are not obliged by any divine command to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds, and that it can in no way be doubted without injury to faith that Communion under either kind is sufficient to them for salvation. For although Christ the Lord at his last supper instituted this sacrament with the form of bread and wine…nevertheless that institution and tradition do not aim at this, that all believers in Christ are bound by the commandment of the Lord to receive both kinds. Neither is it rightly concluded [from the Last Supper or] from the discourse in John 6…that Communion under both kinds is commanded by the Lord” (“Concerning Communion Under Both Kinds”, ch 1).
To be sure, these are not the words of those under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but rather of mad scientists on the verge of an explosion in the laboratory. They have completely reversed and thrown under the bus our marching orders to partake of BOTH bread and wine, so it is inconceivable they have been divinely commissioned to do so. The Lord said the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35), but the Council of Trent has indeed done just that! No reasons whatsoever, no matter how pious they may sound, can justify mutilating the Lord’s Supper down to the choice of either bread or wine. Jesus did not give us that option!
D.O. The Church testifies that Christ was not being metaphoric and has condemned your interpretation of Holy Scriptures as an error long before you presented them on this blog.
M.K. Ummmm, I am quite, QUITE aware of THAT. Yet…while I am grateful for your wordy reply, you could not refute even one sentence against any of the biblically based arguments I presented. Rather, all you have given me is a lot of hot air about this that and the other thing. I dare say that if you were a balloon, you’d pop.
D.O. I would refer you to St. Thomas Aquinas – Summa Theologiae III 75- 77 if you want the scriptural and logical reasons why your arguments are incorrect.
M.K. Excuse me, but T.A. gambled on the pagan scientist and philosopher, Aristotle, to defend the church’s teaching on Transubstantiation. Aristotle invented clever distinctions between “quality and substance”, and Aquinas latched on to these concepts thinking he had discovered gold. His view on the Eucharist may be summed up by one of his hymns: “Though the senses fail to see; faith alone which sight forsaketh, shows true hearts the mystery.”
NO! The Lord does not ask us to venture into unchartered territory and forsake the testimony of our sight by “faith alone”. Comically, Catholics generally despise the doctrine of “faith alone”, yet when it comes to Transubstantiation, we are to believe it by…. faith alone! Nonsense!
D.O. I would refer you to a three volume set called “The Faith of the Early Fathers” by William Jurgens.
M.K. For brevity’s sake, I would refer you to only one of the E.F.’s…Ignatius…who was not exactly the proponent of Transubstantiation that you think he was.
D.O. If you want to prove your point to a catholic, take your interpretations and compare them to the early historical documents that pertain to the Eucharist.
M.K. I took my case to the BIBLE, thank you, and it suffices. Apparently, you think the Lord always speaks with cottonballs in his mouth and is unable to communicate a single coherent truth without a Catholic rep standing over the shoulder. Yes, the Lord instituted the office of a teacher (1 Cor 12:28, Eph 4:12), but not a word is said about a sacerdotal priesthood ORRRRR a papacy, and that is because common sense dictates he never intended for there to be any (except in the sense he has allowed them to arise for his own good reasons). While we love those who deserve our attention after having studying the word in depth, one can only wonder what you do with the verse, …”But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you (1 Jn).
D.O. You claim that Jesus gives no authority to the Church
M.K. I never said any such thing. Of course he gave authority to the “church” (little c). My position is that he did not give infallible authority to the Roman Catholic “Church” (big C). The word “church” is used over 100 times in the N.T., and no where does it convey the meaning of an infallible religious superstructure situated in Rome…. not even in the book of ROOOOMANS, where it should be found if the claim were true. One notices a frightening and tragic pattern with your theology; namely, if God doesn’t mention it in Scripture….”WHO CARES!”
D.O. Your arguments were presented long ago and found to be a heresy.
M.K. Is it heresy to compare Scripture with Scripture (Acts 17:11, 1 Cor 2:13) and learn 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 as per Trent, to insist that the bread very simply ***represents*** Christ’s body. The logic is inescapable regardless of papal pretentions: God is represented as being a treasure, a rock, a shield, a horn, a shadow, a light, a branch, a root, a vine, a tower, a temple, a fortress and on and on! Never was he any of these things in actual fact, and thus the bread and wine never were or ever shall be, his actual body and blood!
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
As Sacred Scripture states “If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, and it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things.” 1 Corinthians 13:3-7
MK, since faith is what we profess and I have been to many different protestant church services and have found The Nicene Creed in their prayer books. We can begin there. The word creed is from the Latin credo which means “I believe/trust in/accept as true” in essence a profession of faith.
“I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
As you can see Christian don’t profess faith in the Holy Scriptures they profess faith in God and the holy, catholic and apostolic Church that gives us Holy Scriptures. No one gets baptized in the name of the Bible.
With that said I will now ask: Do you believe in the power of the Holy Spirit?
Let me explain the Liturgy of the Eucharist (the ancient church prayer said during Mass) in terms you might understand. Part of the Eucharistic prayer is the epiclesis. The calling down from on high or the invocation of the Holy Spirit. Here is an example of what is asks for in that prayer: “Therefore, O Lord, we pray: may this same Holy Spirit graciously sanctify these offerings, that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the celebration of this great mystery which he himself left us as an eternal covenant.” The pray then continues with the institution narrative recalling the words and actions of Jesus at the Last Supper which is from Mark 14:22-24; Matt 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. As the prayer continues we have the Mystery of Faith acclamation, anamnesis (remembering or memorial of Christ) and another epiclesis. Here is an example of the second calling down of the Holy Spirit “Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.”
Now let us take a look at Sacred Scripture:
“Again, [amen,] I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Matthew Chapter 18:19-20
“And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. What father among you would hand his son a snake when he asks for a fish? Or hand him a scorpion when he asks for an egg? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the holy Spirit to those who ask him?” Luke Chapter 11: 9-13
So in essence when you ridicule and attack transubstantiation you are attacking a prayer to God. You are also mocking and sinning against the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is the one transforming the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Basically, just because you lack faith and don’t ask or pray for the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ, you have no right to mock and ridicule anyone else’s prayers. This is why the Council of Trent called men who preached against transubstantiation as satanical (cruel, wicked, perversely bad) and impious (lacking reverence). It is really a very simple concept to understand.
Think of it this way, if a Muslim lacks the faith to believe in Christ because he believes God cannot become man and God is not begotten does he have the right to mock and ridicule Christians? Christians would say no and answer back that the Muslim actually lacks the faith to believe all things are possible for God.
I will prayer for you that your faith and understanding of God will increase and you get past your pride, do a true examination of conscience, and seek forgiveness and reconciliation with the Church.
D.O. faith is what we profess
M.K. My contention is that you profess faith in, “another jesus and another gospel” per 2 Cor 11:4. The “professing” Christians in Matt 7 were sent to hell, as were the 5 “professing” foolish virgins in Matt 25 who were actually waiting for the Bridegroom. Thus, if your faith is misguided, (and I say it is) you are lost, and consequently, what you assert at the get-go has a dark cloud hanging over it.
D.O. I have been to many different protestant church services and have found The Nicene Creed in their prayer books. We can begin there.
M.K. No, we cannot begin there. You can begin with interacting with one sentence of my essay, which you have not done, but are skipping over it to avoid dealing with those ever present dark clouds hanging over Transubstantiation. I, on the other hand, have no problem dealing with your response, and it is an act of mercy that I am doing so when you have not given me the same courtesy.
D.O. Christians don’t profess faith in the Holy Scriptures, they profess faith in God
M.K. This is an ignorant statement. In Roman 9:17, we read that, “The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh”. IOW, this phrase equates the words of Scripture with the very words of God, and thus of God himself. His “person” and his word, are two sides of the same coin and CANNOT be separated.
D.O. [We profess faith] in the holy, catholic and apostolic Church that gives us Holy Scriptures.
M.K. Once again, the fact that all non-Catholics REJECT the Catholic canon due to the inclusion of the Apocrypha, casts a serious black cloud over the bogus claim that we “MUST” be forever grateful to the Catholic Church! Sure, God can use any means to get the ball rolling (as he did with the Jews) but the RCC only “officially” gave us their canon 1,550 years after Christ left this Earth at the Council of Trent, adding the Apocrypha which was disputed by a whole LOT of people in your camp too numerous to mention here up until that time, and rightly so. It contains so many holes that one is reminded of a slice of swiss cheese.
D.O. The Eucharistic prayer is the epiclesis. The calling down from on high or the invocation of the Holy Spirit.
M.K. The catechism states, “the very action of Christ at the Last Supper” is duplicated at Mass, “in persona Christi” (CCC 1350). And where, pray tell, do we read THAT in Scripture? Answer: NO WHERE. On the contrary, the “very action” of Christ at table did NOT include “begging” the Holy Spirit to perform the miracle of Transubstantiation (CCC 1105), so your theology is categorically unbiblical.
D.O. Let me explain the Liturgy of the Eucharist…
M.K. No. The reader will note that you continue to avoid my essay and seek to change the subject. Nevertheless, I will stop you here and cross-examine you on a particular part of your liturgy; namely of those mysterious “eucharist angels”. Well? Whooooo, pray tell, came up with the idea? What I mean is, every Mass contains the prayer that, “by the hands of your holy angel, this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven in the sight of your divine majesty” (CCC 1383).
To begin with, the Bible does not say one solitary word about an army of eucharist angels, zooming back and forth to heaven, “carrying by the hands” a transubstantiated sacrifice from every Mass on Earth to the throne room of God, 24/7, until the end of time! Rather, Eucharist Angels fly on the wings of heresy and insult our intelligence for so many reasons that their very existence cannot be anything else but a cunning, theological deception. The many questions which Transubstantiation provokes in general, and Eucharist Angels in particular, are doctrines which promote controversial speculation (1 Tim 3-4). Since the Lord despises these things, it is inconceivable he would initiate them. Here are the many “controversial speculations” which arise from these inconceivable, “flying fabrications”….
1) We want to know, to whom, when and where did God reveal this doctrine of a eucharist angel army?
Answer? No one knows and no Catholic cares because it is beyond our senses (CCC 1381), therefore, “whatever has been preached and believed throughout the whole Church with true Catholic faith since the days of antiquity is true, even if it not be subject to rational investigation, and even if it not be explained in words” (Mysterium Fidei, 22).
NO. It is inconceivable that God approves of Rome’s game-plan to, “just believe what we say and don’t ask any questions”, when in fact, he tells us to do the very opposite (1 Thess 5:21; Rev 2:2). Jesus said we would be judged by his word alone (John 12:48) and since Scripture is the only place where his words may be found, the doctrine of Eucharist Angels is inconceivable because Scripture is silent on the matter.
2) Scripture declares that it was Christ alone who “offered Himself to God” (Heb 7:27, 9:14; Matt 20:28), so it is inconceivable that we, or any priest, let alone an army of Eucharist Angels, do likewise.
3) It is inconceivable that the sacrifice of the Mass is even carried by an angel to heaven at all. The bread and wine are alleged to be a “VISIBLE sacrifice which man requires” (CCC 1366), but the bread and wine still remain on the altar, yet we are to believe that an INVISIBLE angel has taken it away???
4) Since Rome agrees that Jesus already entered heaven to appear in the presence of God on our behalf (Heb 9:24), it is inconceivable that he be carried by angelic hands to heaven in light of the fact he is already THERE! Rome has Jesus “holding himself in his own hands” at the Last Supper, then lifting his hands to eat himself in front of the disciples, then taken into the hands of the priest at Mass, who then deposits him into the hands of the laity, who is then carried to heaven by the hands of an angel, where Jesus is already sitting at the right hand of God! When will the madness end?
5) In the liturgy of the Mass, the priest prays, “We offer to you, God of glory, this holy and perfect sacrifice…look with favor on these offerings and accept them…[and] by the hands of your holy angel, this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven” (CCC 1383). But it is inconceivable that God accepts the priest’s request that an unbloody sin offering be carried to him by angel’s hands, in light of his aversion to any REPEATED offerings whatsoever (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:25-26, 9:28, 10:10, 10:12, 10:14, 10:18).
6) Hebrews 7:27 EXPLICITLY states that Jesus does not need to offer himself daily; let alone by a Eucharist Angel; therefore, it is inconceivable the popes are correct when they proclaim, “Christ daily offers himself upon our altars for our redemption” (Mediator Dei, #73; cf. Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, #35; Caritatis Studium, #9; CCC 1364-66).
7) To escape the controversy provoked by the Bible’s strict denunciation of repeated sacrifice, Catholics piously blink their eyes and say that the UNBLOODY sacrifice of the Mass is simply not a repetition of the BLOODY sacrifice on Calvary at all (CCC 1104). Their proof? The inconceivable notion that, “Everything Christ did, participates in the divine eternity and so transcends all times” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 11-13). What?! This miserable excuse is supposed to convince us that the BLOODY sacrifice once offered in the past, is IDENTICAL to the unbloody sacrifice now offered by priests and Eucharist Angels (CCC 1367). However, the proposition that God looks through the lens of a “divine eternity” at Mass, is nothing but a mass-HYPNOSIS of, “great swelling words of emptiness” (2 Peter 2:18). A bloody and an unbloody sacrifice are plainly DIFFERENT, periodically and in practice. It follows then that no “transcending of time in a divine eternity” can ever make them identical no matter how you look at it. Ergo, this apologetic fails the test of logic. Count on it: the bloodless and repetitious sacrifice of the Mass, tragically compromises the bloody and singular work of redemption which is very simply described as “finished” (John 19:30). Therefore, the biblical axiom of no repeated sacrifices and no repeated offerings whatsoever, must stand (1 Thess 5:21).
8) In the Mass, the Pope claims that “the central event of salvation becomes really present” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 11). We object! Need it be said that past events are forever chained to their place in antiquity? They cannot reappear in the future under the form of inanimate objects like bread and wine, let alone can they be carried to heaven by a Eucharist Angel for the forgiveness of sins on a daily basis! (CCC 1104, 1111, 1362-1364, 1366-67, 1393, 1409). Yet the Pope insists that this “central event” is “not confined to the past [because] all that Christ did, participates in the divine eternity and so transcends all times” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 11-13). NO! The Lord’s cross-work is transcendent only in the sense that there is a timeless efficacy about it; in other words, while the application of his blood is always available, this application is to the doorposts of our heart by faith alone (cf. Ex 12:7), NOT by drinking it. While the commemoration of his sacrifice goes on through time, the spectacle itself is indeed confined to the past, despite what the Pope says. It cannot be redone, reproduced, repeated, recreated, revitalized, re-presented, renewed or refurbished!
Silly arguments relating to the “divine eternity” do not justify Eucharist Angels carrying a transubstantiated “jesus” to heaven so that the benefits of the cross may be “applied” to the living and the dead (CCC 1366, 1371, 1393). But it gets worse. We are shocked to discover the claim that the ***resurrection*** is also “made present” in the liturgy (CCC 1409). Again, how do you fit the resurrection event into a piece of flatbread? It is inconceivable! At the very least, true Christians know that in communion, we show forth his DEATH until he comes (1 Cor 11:26). There is no biblical or historical justification for giving equal emphasis to the resurrection in the Eucharist, nor is there warrant for offering the Eucharist “in commemoration of the Blessed Virgin Mary” (CCC 1370). These are modern novelties, pulled like a rabbit out of a hat, that must be rejected along with everything else they teach.
9) Trent declares that Jesus, “the victim” is, “daily immolated on the altar by priests” (“Doctrine Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass”; CCC 1383). It is both heartbreaking and tragic that Catholics choose to refer to Jesus as a “victim”. HE IS NOT, nor was he ever any such thing (John 10:11-18). Moreover, to “immolate” means the destruction of something as an act of sacrifice. But Jesus said he desired to eat the Passover “before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). If, as they say, the Last Supper was the first Mass where Jesus gave himself in sacrifice before he went to the cross, and every Mass is identical to the sacrifice offered on Calvary where he did suffer, then by their own definition, Jesus is being immolated and suffering at the Last Supper. But this he flatly denies. That said, it is inconceivable to suppose that a Eucharist Angel would dare offer an UNBLOODY, pre-crucified Christ to God at the time of the Last Supper for the remission of sins when, “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins” (Heb 9:22). Excuses such as “it was all happening in the divine eternity in an unbloody manner” is beyond ridiculous and will not be tolerated.
“Let no man deceive you with empty words” (Eph 5:6). It follows then that just as God rejected the offering of Cain (Genesis 4:4), so too does he reject the unbloody sin-offering brought to him by an army of Eucharist Angels.
10) Another reason God will not accept any offering from Eucharist Angels is because Catholicism has abrogated the original command to partake of both bread and wine–as I told you in my previous combox, and instead teach Jesus would be pleased we take either one!
11) Finally, the Old Testament high priests entered the Holy Place once a year with blood “not their own” (i.e., animal blood; Heb 9:25). This was temporary because it was, “impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb 10:4). In vivid contrast, Jesus would enter the heavenly sanctuary only once, “with his own blood” (i.e., God has accepted it once and for all time, per Hebrews 9:12). The practice of entering “with blood not their own” is now null and void, so it is inconceivable that God would re-establish the practice by the actions of the Catholic priest at Mass. In other words, when a priest assumes he transubstantiates the bread and wine into Christ’s blood, so that it may be carried to God by a Eucharist Angel, he tacitly confesses that his sacrifice accomplishes nothing at all because the practice of a mediator coming before God “with blood not his own” has been utterly done away with. It doesn’t make a bit of difference if they wink and say the blood “not their own” is the perfect and sinless blood of the Redeemer. Biblical protocol demands a “change to the priesthood and a change to the law” (Heb 7:13). Thus, the Roman Catholic priest, along with Eucharist Angels, err by offering blood that is “not their own”, which is precisely the element that the sacrifice of Christ would not have (cf. Hebrews 7:13, 9:12 & 9:25).
MoJo, LOL, What a bunch of BS. Paul tells us that Satan always comes as an -Eucharistic- angel of light, (2 Cor 11:14). Make sure you tell these good people, whose faith will not be shaken, that your other username is also Eucharistic Angel.
People, reading m.k., aka, MoJo, aka Eucharistic Angel, has one aim in mind, that is to destroy the Catholic Church. It kills him that the RCC remains alive and well. If he can only destroy it, he and his ilk could claim that are the true church. The only problem is that Jesus Christ ordained the Church as his Body with Himself as the head and we as the members of this Body. The Church we call Catholic is established, not by mere men, but by Christ Himself. And Christ said that the Gates of
Protestantismhell would not prevail against her.
MoJo, I pray for you that before you meet your Master Lucifer, you come to a knowledge of the truth. That truth is found in Christ and His Church, that Church He gave Himself up for.
When you hear these words “MoJo MoJo, why did you persecute me” know it is to late.
Anytime MoJo, you want to pick another one of your heresies, come to the Zell Challenge. You lost on Penal Substitution and you will lose on the other Protestant and un-Protestant Protestant heresies as well.
RZ: Make sure you tell these good people that your other username is also Eucharistic Angel.
M: Who in the world cares WHAT my other username is?! Recently on another thread, you told me not to use ad hominem attacks, which as you know, are attacks against “the person” — which have nothing to do with the issue at hand. But here, you bring up the fact of (oh horror of horrors!) another username as if it were a crime and I am to be condemned.
Uuuum….If the shoe fits, wear it, CinderFELLA.
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
I once again reviewed your epistle and found the whole proposition full of logical inconsistency and statements that one has to conclude you are either being intellectually dishonest with yourself or have the research skills of a poor grammar school student.
Here is what you proffer as your case against the Catholic Church. You don’t like the Papacy and any of its doctrines and if you can prove one of the Dogma’s proclaimed by the Pope wrong then all of the doctrines of the Catholic Church are wrong. The doctrine you picked to prove wrong was the doctrine of transubstantiation or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You then basically took the Bible and twisted the meaning of various verses and proclaimed yourself the winner or basically the new unelected Pope of the Church and all-time best interpreter of Sacred Scripture.
Well since you set the rules and every Catholic knows that 80 to 90 percent of protestant doctrines are Catholic doctrines, I started to laugh at the whole idea. First you can’t use the Bible…your rule not mine…all Catholic doctrine is wrong according to you and off the table. So in order for you to use the Bible you first have to convince me the Bible is the word of God. You have to go into complete details on how it came about and how you know it is the work of God. After that please explain why you are allowed to use an English vernacular version and not the original languages. Give us your witness list.
Oh wait a minute…we missed a step. Since the Council of Trent basically had to reaffirm all basic Christian Doctrines because each protestant sect at the time of the reformation reject some of them, you have an extra burden with your rules. First you have to convince us there is a Triune God and all the other doctrines of Faith you wish to profess and want us to believe. You need to give us your Creed and the testimony of why we are to believe you. Give us your witness list.
So basically even with all your words and bloviating you failed to even begin to defend your proffered case. Basically all you said was no matter what Catholics believe about Holy Scripture or prayer, bread is bread and wine is wine and God can’t change that. Basically since making bread is a work of man and making wine is a work of man, your lord’s supper is no more than a grace before meals.
All one can get from your writings, if we chose to take them seriously, is either you are a Gnostic pagan who practices Bibliolatry or at worst an atheist or agnostic.
You remind me of the scribes and Pharisees in the eight chapter of The Gospel of John. They brought a women to Jesus and wanted his opinion on her case. They told Jesus they caught the woman “in the very act of Adultery” and the Law of Moses (the Bible) commanded them to stone her. What say you Jesus? The scribes and Pharisees were testing him. So Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger (note no one saved the words written) and then made his pronouncement “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Basically Jesus was telling them, you are all false witnesses. How do I know? Simple I believe Jesus knew a little about biology and if one is “caught in the very act of Adultery” there would be two people being stoned not one. Second under the Law of Moses, you needed two witnesses for a capital punishment case and they had to throw the first stones. No stone was thrown because no one was a witness. At least those people confronted by Jesus had the good sense to know they were wrong and walk away in peace accepting the lesson taught.
MK you are prideful and shameless false witness against Christ and his Bride, the Church. Before you started on your little crusade against The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you could have just done the minimum of research and realize your interpretation of Sacred Scripture had no witnesses for the first 10 centuries of the Church and even then it was ruled a heresy right away. Below is just the basic research that proves your view wrong. I have included many Catholic witnesses and two Protestant witnesses (one being the father of the reformation) against your beliefs. My sincere hope is that God’s grace will be accepted by you and your next post will be a full and sincere apology.
Martin Luther- Protestant Reformer – The father of the Protestant reformation
Martin Luther’s condemnation of MK…Almost Five Hundred years before MK wrote a single word…He actually calls MK the devil…
“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the Holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
King Henry the VIII- Protestant Reformer – Founder of the Anglican Church
King Henry the VIII condemnation of MK….again almost Five hundred years before MK wrote a single word..
Assertio septem sacramentorum; or, Defence of the seven sacraments Chapter IV – The Sacrament of the Altar…Defends transubstantiation as true…quotes many church fathers and St. Ambose..Though the form of bread and wine is seen upon the altar, yet we must believe there is nothing else but the Body and Blood of Christ”
https://archive.org/details/cu31924029398223 Page 28-32
A basic starting point of research for all, even a grade school students.
The Catholic Encylopedia
Quotes by the Church Fathers that someone was kind enough to put on the internet in one place…
Early Christian Teaching on the Eucharist
St. Thomas Aquinas-Summa Theologiae – from His book for beginners in understanding God and Christian Doctrine.
Question 73. The Sacrament of the Eucharist
Question 74. The matter of this sacrament
Question 75. The change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ
Question 76. The way in which Christ is in this sacrament
Question 78. The form of this sacrament
A Pope to Know…Pope St. Damasus I- The person responsible for The Vuglate-Translation of the Bible from the original languages into the vernacular of the day, Latin. He also had a major role in the proclamation of the Canon of Sacred Scripture.
Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Canon of Scripture during the reign of Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384).
“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.
Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.
Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.
The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.
Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.”
Definitions of terms
Bibliolatry (from the Greek βιβλίον biblion, “book” and the suffix -λατρία -latria, “worship”) is the worship of a book or the description of a deity found in a book. In Christianity, “bibliolatry” is used to describe extreme devotion to the Bible or to biblical inerrancy. Supporters of biblical inerrancy point to passages (such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17) interpreted to say that the Bible, as received, is a complete source of what must be known about God. Critics of this view call it a form of idolatry, pointing to verses (such as John 5:39-40) to indicate that Jesus asked humanity to relate to God directly rather than seeking God’s rules and spurning a relationship with the God who created them.
Another influence on bibliolatry is the fact that nearly all of those who hold high views of the Bible’s authority against tradition also tend to reject the Biblical authority of the deuterocanonical books found in the Septuagint that Catholicism and Eastern Christianity regard as canonical. Protestants reject these books, despite their regard by the church for over a millennium before the reformers rejected their authority.
Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, “having knowledge”, from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern name for a variety of ancient religious ideas and systems, originating in Jewish-Christian milieus in the first and second century AD. Based on their readings of the Torah and other Biblical writings,[specify] these systems believed that the material world is created by an emanation of the highest God, trapping the Divine spark within the human body. This Divine spark could be liberated by gnosis.
Gnosis refers to knowledge based on personal experience or perception. In a religious context, gnosis is mystical or esoteric knowledge based on direct participation with the divine. In most Gnostic systems, the sufficient cause of salvation is this “knowledge of” (“acquaintance with”) the divine. It is an inward “knowing,” comparable to that encouraged by Plotinus (neoplatonism), and differs from Christian proto-orthodox views. Gnostics are “those who are oriented toward knowledge and understanding — or perception and learning — as a particular modality for living.”
D.O. I once again reviewed your epistle and found the whole proposition full of logical inconsistency
MK: Spare me your worthless comments WITHOUT A SPECK OF PROOF.
As I told you on 2/19, you failed to interact with it then, as you do now. You very simply are so full of hot air, if you were a balloon, you’d pop.
Face it: There is no Bible on Earth that records Jesus as saying the bread was “TRULY” his body and so, guess what? After I die I’m going to request a special seat in the back when it comes to your particular Judgment and can’t wait to see how you will try to convince Jesus that he DID say it after all. You will perhaps suggest to him that he was sleeping on his feet and he just forgot about it due to a bad memory? Certainly the Council of Trent could not have made a mistake, you will plead and argue.
His response? OH YES THEY DID!
Moreover, I systematically answered your complaints outside of the scope of that essay, and your responses once again failed to deal with I had wrote! I’m debating someone now with the same problem. I write something and he avoids it like the plague and goes on to something else. Well that’s just fine with me. Failing to interact with the biblical data in a debate proves you are speechless, which by the way, will be exactly your reaction on Judgment Day when you are told that what you had believed was one big fat LIE.
Attempt at a straightforward Biblical justification for the Christian belief in the real presence:
1) From Jn. 6:
51I am the living bread * which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” * 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
(“indeed” means “truly”)
CCC1376 explains that Council of Trent understands the words of Jn. 6 to apply to the Eucharist. If Jn. 6 doesn’t apply to Eucharist, what is Jesus talking about in Jn. 6? This question is for any Christian who denies the real presence:
2) From CCC 1376:
“The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread . . . this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”206”
3) The above interpretation of the Christian faith was the universal interpretation of all Christian churches until the 16th century, when John Calvin rejected this teaching for the first time in the history of Christianity.
4)Belief in real presence of Christ goes all the way back to apostles as Jn 6 shows. And it was believed by all the earliest Church Fathers. Here are the words of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, the friend and disciple of John the Apostle, the author of Jn. 6:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible [Letter to the Romans 7 (c. A.D. 110)]. From Jimmy Akin, “The Fathers Know Best”
5). Next passage from Ignatius of Antioch explains why it is necessary to believe in the literal truth of real presence, why we must reject the idea that this is just a metaphor or allegory like others in the Bible. This is because the real presence explains and describes a true spiritual reality: GOD GIVES US HIS SPIRIT. HE PLACES HIS SPIRIT IN US. THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL PROMISE OF THE NEW COVENANT. AND THE CUP OF CHRIST IS THE FULFILLMENT OF THIS NEW COVENANT. Here is Ignatius of Antioch again:
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes [Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6–7 (c. A.D. 110)].”
Akin, Jimmy (2011-01-28). The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church (Kindle Locations 4367-4373). Catholic Answers. Kindle Edition.
6) Conclusion. The Church, from the time of the Apostles and earliest Fathers has always believed in the real presence because it is so plainly stated in Scripture—certainly in Jn. 6 and in the words of consecration.
BUT EVEN PROTESTANTS BELIEVE THAT GOD SENDS US HIS SPIRIT AND PLACES HIS SPIRIT IN US. WHEN THEY REJECT THE DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE, THEY PRESUME TO KNOW HOW EXACTLY GOD PLACES HIS SPIRIT IN US: “Oh yes, he can send his Spirit by a dove, or by water, or by his breath, or by tongues of fire, but NEVER could he nor would he gives us his Spirit by bread and by wine.”
Really? How would they know how God sends us His Spirit? What doctoral program could possibly shed light on this subject? To what branch of science does this subject belong? If you think about it for just a moment you will realize that NOBODY COULD EVER KNOW HOW EXACTLY GOD DOES THIS. NOT EVEN THE ANGELS OF HEAVEN ARE QUALIFIED TO SAY HOW GOD MIGHT SEND HIS SPIRIT TO HIS PEOPLE! Only God Himself can know or understand this. So I suggest we stick with His words in Scripture, the words of Jesus Christ in Jn. 6 and in the words of consecration.
JG: [Here is my] attempt at a straightforward Biblical justification for the Christian belief in the real presence:
MK: Thank you for this attempt.
JG: From Jn. 6: I am the living bread * which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” * 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
(“indeed” means “truly”)
MK: You will recall, my dear Mr. Gravino, that Trent made the claim that Jesus “truly” called the bread his body AT THE LAST SUPPER, not J-6. Again, they claim he said this at the L.S. (!!!) and were not referencing any of his words in J-6. Hence, because Jesus said no such thing–and in conjunction with making this statement under the claimed guidance of the Holy Spirit, they prove themselves to be a non-prophet organization, and thus, your kind attempt has failed.
JG: CCC1376 explains that the Council of Trent understands the words of Jn. 6 to apply to the Eucharist.
MK: CCC1376 nowhere makes a connection to J-6. Perhaps you were referring to 1338, where we read that J- 6 was a “preparation” for the institution of the Eucharist. However, “application” and “preparation” for the Eucharist in J-6 is not possible because the Eucharist would not be instituted until a year later. How could his audience “prepare” for something that was not in existence yet? How could they actually “eat” him if that’s what Jesus really meant for them to do? After all, he was asking them to “eat him now”, on the spot, without bread and wine, so how could they comply if Transubstantiation were the point? Answer? They could not comply in any literal, “eucharistic sense” at all because “this bread is my flesh which I “WILL” give for the life of the world” is future tense (John 6:51) referring to the giving of his flesh at Calvary— not that they should actually eat it on the spot.
JG: If Jn. 6 doesn’t apply to Eucharist, what is Jesus talking about in Jn. 6?
MK: To BELIEVE in Christ! …which is the very way he responded to them when they asked him, “what shall we do?”. To BELIEVE, which is the quintessential point from start to finish in John’s gospel, is something his audience could easily comply with…on the spot, if they were open to the intriguing metaphor of eating flesh and drinking blood, which essentially means the same thing. Many in the audience did NOT believe (6:36), so it is outrageous to suppose that Jesus would take them to the next level of Transubstantiation (even if it were true) if they first did not FIRST believe in him! Do third grade students graduate into Jr. High without finishing grade 6? No they don’t. It’s just as simple as that.
JG: CCC 1376 is an interpretation of [the] Christian faith [which] was the universal interpretation of all Christian churches until the 16th century
MK: NO. CCC 1376 is not an “interpretation”. It is a direct quote issued from the Council of Trent under the claimed guidance of the Holy Spirit. The fact that no Bible on earth records Jesus as saying the bread was “truly” is body, swings the wrecking ball at Trent’s claim of infallibility, and therefore, everything they have to say about the Eucharist must be utterly rejected according to God Almighty (Deuteronomy 18:22 and Jeremiah 23:30-40; cf. Jeremiah 14:14, 23:16-21).
Neither was Transubstantiation a “universal” belief as you suppose. If I can provide just ONE person who gave the metaphorical view the time of day, your “universal” claim must be found to be a gross exaggeration. Look at Augustine.
“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure…(NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16 (section 24).
“To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already” (NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, §12).
“For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes, eats… (“NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 26, §1).
JG: John Calvin rejected this teaching for the first time in the history of Christianity.
JG: Belief in real presence of Christ goes all the way back to apostles as Jn 6 shows.
MK: There is not the slightest indication of any metaphysical “real presence” hiding in a piece of bread ” in J-6! Where? What verse? NAME IT. There is, on the other hand, oodles of evidence AGAINST the physical manifestation of Jesus Christ as I presented in my essay. The Bible speaks of his real ABSENCE, not his real PRESENCE. True Christians have the promise of his “real presence” via the Holy Spirit as he promised in numerous places. He did NOT promise the presence of his real physical anatomy! Over 10 times we read that was he was… “going away”, and that if anyone comes along claiming they’ve seen him, to…”BELIEVE IT NOT”. Your priest says, “Oh look! he is right here in the monstrance!” But Jesus says NOT to believe it, and therefore, we won’t. Even the apostle says, “Though we have known Christ in the flesh, yet now henceforth know WE HIM NO MORE” [in the flesh]. And that would include any notion of Christ’s flesh in the Eucharist!
Can you not see that you are being duped by the Father of lies?
JG: [But what about] Ignatius?
MK: Read it and weep… http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/07/27/eating-ignatius/
JG: Ignatius also says, “and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible [Letter to the Romans 7 (c. A.D. 110)].
MK: There is not one person on earth who believes that Christ’s blood is actually… “LOVE incorruptible”. You are reading his words but fail to grasp his metaphorical speech, just as you fail to grasp the metaphor of Christ. As the above link shows, Iggy was perhaps THEE most metaphorical writer of them all. Consequently, Catholics fall into the same error as those who came before them. Just like the Jews failed to understand that Jesus did not mean he should actually eat his flesh—and just like the woman at the well failed to understand he was not offering her a literal drink of water but the water of the Holy Spirit…. and just like the Jews who failed to understand that he didn’t really mean he would rebuild the temple in 3 days…. and just like Nicodemus did not understand that Jesus didn’t mean to go crawl back into his mother’s womb by the statement, “you must be born again”…. what we see is the FAR-TOO literal approach to Jesus’ words that results in misunderstanding, and millions of Catholics are in the exact same boat as those who erred before them. No difference whatsoever.
JG: Conclusion. The Church, from the time of the Apostles and earliest Fathers has always believed in the real presence because it is so plainly stated in Scripture
MK: It most certainly is NOT “so plainly stated”. You are only kidding yourself. As Jesus said, “You do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God”.
JG: BUT EVEN PROTESTANTS BELIEVE THAT GOD SENDS US HIS SPIRIT AND PLACES HIS SPIRIT IN US.
MK: Make that the only true sentence you have written thus far.
JG: WHEN THEY REJECT THE DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE, THEY PRESUME TO KNOW HOW EXACTLY GOD PLACES HIS SPIRIT IN US… How would they know how God sends us His Spirit?
MK: Easy. By faith alone (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).
JG: [Protestants say he would] NEVER gives us his Spirit by bread and by wine.
MK: Correct. Because he simply never promised any such thing! Care to give me the verse which promises the Holy Spirit via the Eucharist?
No, I didn’t think you would.
JG: So I suggest we stick with His words in Scripture
MK: If you did that, you wouldn’t be Catholic.
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
I believe anybody who has read this blog and all of the sources I have provided in my responses knows that I have fully answered all your objections from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition going back 2000 years. You however have just provided your own personal opinion. I believe fair minded people will make up their own minds on who is correct. I personally am no big fan of Martin Luther but even he states you are wrong and calls your opinion, the Devil’s interpretation. You are either so full of pride to even read my comments or simply cannot accept the fact you are wrong. It appears you have some psychological block when the light of truth is shown upon the self-righteous dark spots of your heart. One must assume you are a former Catholic who left the true faith based on a lie and are in shock and disbelief. I hope and pray that someday you will actually do the research, stop acting like a self-righteous demigod, and truly pray “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
I will pray for you on your long journey ahead….
“O Almighty and Everlasting God, who hast compassion on all, and would not that any should perish; favorably look down upon all those who are seduced by the deceit of Satan; that the hearts of such as err may repent and come to thy Truth. Amen”
May the Lord have mercy on your soul…
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
If you really believe what you wrote why are you referring people to a site that quotes the Church Fathers, even a site that misquotes them and takes their words out of context. Johannes Oecolampadius wrote a nice little book in 1524 called “De genuine verborum Domini: Hoc est Corpus meum” that did the same thing and even used the Bible to come up with a similar theory on the Eucharist as you. Bishop John Fisher, a true reformer of the church, answered it with “ De Veritate Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia, adversus Johannem Oecolampadium “ in 1527 in such detail that it showed Johannes Oecolampadius knowingly made false statement and refuted every point so convincingly that not one Protestant Reformer stood by or defended Oecolampadius. Actually not one Protestant ever answered Bishop John Fisher. Maybe it was because he was also the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge and had all the research tools of the day at his fingertips. I guess better to be thought the fool then open your mouth and remove the doubt. You will note this was years before The Council of Trent.
Don’t you remember your own words…you don’t have a spiritual mother or father or if you do you don’t believe there words.
MK: “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!”
I don’t think any catholic has shied away from the Bible…ever. In fact, I know the Bible is used much more at a Catholic Mass than at any Protestant Service I have ever seen. We just have a traditional interpretation. Your claim is you know the true meaning of the Eucharist by your infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture. The sad part about this whole thing is you don’t understand that not even the Pope can change the historical interpretation of Sacred Scripture on the Eucharist.
Anyway can you explain to me why you misquoted the eighteenth Chapter of The Book of Revelation?
MK: 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).
True quote of Revelation 18:4 is “Then I heard another voice from heaven say: “Depart from her,* my people, so as not to take part in her sins and receive a share in her plagues,”
Knowing you have such great knowledge of the Bible you know you should never misquote the Book of Revelation:
Revelation Chapter 22 verses 18-19 “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.”
It appears you did both even with all your great knowledge and insight into Sacred Scripture. MK, you refuted yourself by mocking others.
As for me, I will stick with the traditional interpretation of the Bible and my Catholic Catechism and use them the way God wanted them to be used. They are given to the Church so Christians can know Him, love Him and serve Him. To Him all Glory be given!
I leave you with two quotes from the church Fathers and a website to the Miracles of the Eucharist (something that never happens with at a Protestant Church)
Tertullian: “Or, if He pretended that bread were His Body, because in truth He lacked a body, then he must have given bread for us. It would support the vanity of Marcion, had bread been crucified! But why call His Body bread, and not rather a pumpkin, which Marcion had in place of a brain!”
St. Augustine: “CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS HANDS, WHEN IN GIVING HIS OWN BODY HE SAID, “THIS IS MY BODY”. FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.”
Oh what great insight St. Augustine had…
Ox: If you really believe what you wrote why are you referring people to a site that… misquotes them and takes their words out of context.
MK: Spare me the banter of “out of context” allegations with no examples.
Oh by the way, someone just e-mailed me that you sniffed glue in the boy’s room in high school. Even though I’m refusing to reveal my source, I’m confident people will just believe me.
Ox: Actually not one Protestant ever answered Bishop John Fisher.
MK: Actually, not one Catholic has ever been able to deal with my argument that the Council of Trent was not infallible due to their putting a word in the mouth of Christ where it does not belong, thus exposing their religious system as counterfeit Christianity.
Ox: remember your own words…[you said] “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!”
you don’t have a spiritual mother or father or if you do you don’t believe there words.
MK: Stop acting as if early church personnel were infallible. They disagreed amongst themselves in hundreds of places. What you do is simply pick and choose whom you will believe when it suits your purpose, and like Yankee Doodle Dandy, you stick a feather in your cap and call it macaroni.
Ox: Your claim is you know the true meaning of the Eucharist by your infallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture.
MK: Well as far as this conversation goes, I suppose my words must indeed be infallible due to the fact that you have not disproven one blessed word I have said!
Ox: The sad part about this whole thing is you don’t understand that not even the Pope can change the historical interpretation of Sacred Scripture on the Eucharist.
MK: I never made ANY comment about any Pope trying to change anything! I’afraid you need to take a crash course from the “Evelyn Woods Reading Dynamics Institute”.
Ox: Anyway can you explain to me why you misquoted the eighteenth Chapter of The Book of Revelation?
MK: I never did any such thing.
Ox: The true quote of Revelation 18:4 is “Then I heard another voice from heaven say: “Depart from her,* my people, so as not to take part in her sins and receive a share in her plagues,”
MK: Apparently you are unaware that different Bible versions use different words. Oh my, do YOU need to take a wake-up pill.
Ox: Knowing you have such great knowledge of the Bible you know you should never misquote
MK: Can you really be serious??? My very first argument on this page has to do with the MISQUOTE that the so-called “infallible” Council of Trent was guilty of (!!!).
And what was your response to that? Nothing but chirping crickets!
Ox: Revelation Chapter 22 verses 18-19… “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book
MK: Yes, tell me about it. And then tell us all why you think Trent will not be found guilty of…ADDING… a word into the mouth of the Savior that not one Bible on Earth records. I’d PAY to hear your response to that, but as we both know, I will hear nothing but… chirping crickets.
Ox: you refuted yourself by mocking others.
MK: Huh? I refuted MYYYYYSELF??? Au contrair, Pierre. You just refuted YOURSELF by telling us that misquoting is a no-no, but that you are perfectly OK with Trent misquoting Christ! And then you tell us that God says it is a no-no to ADD anything to his word, but have no objection to the… ADDED word… that Trent ADDED! Yikes! If you are on medication, may I cautiously suggest you cut your dose in half?
Ox: As for me, I will stick with the traditional interpretation of the Bible
MK: If you stuck with the tradition of the Bible, you would know that no Bible on Earth records Christ saying that the bread was “TRULY” his body, and you would (if you have any integrity whatsoever) GET OUT of the Catholic Church which tells you that he DID!
Ox: and [I will stick with] my Catholic Catechism and use them the way God wanted them to be used.
MK: Your catechism is unreliable. For example, JPII signed off on it making ROOM for the death penalty. But not too long ago, Frank the crank, announced to the world that the D.P. was unacceptable under any circumstances WHATSOEVER. Consequently, two Popes have just contradicted themselves, leaving the man in the pew wondering just who the HELICOPTER is right. So in actual fact, you cannot use the catechism…”the way God wants it to be used” (to use your words), because the Popes have made it impossible to decipher just what God’s opinion is on the death penalty!
Ox: I leave you with two quotes from the church Fathers
St. Augustine: “CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS HANDS, WHEN IN GIVING HIS OWN BODY HE SAID, “THIS IS MY BODY”. FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.”
Oh what great insight St. Augustine had…
MK: Yes, Augustine had great insight indeed. He also said
“For to believe on him is to eat the living bread. He that believes, eats…” (NPNF1: Vol II, Tractates on John, Tractate 26).
My position exactly. Or how about this…
“for the absent Christ is also present…He is away, and He is here…He has carried His body into heaven, but His majesty He has never withdrawn from the world” (Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 50.4 italics mine).
When Augustine asked how he should take hold of Christ who is absent, he should have, if he were Roman Catholic, say, “by taking the Eucharist.” However, he does not do so because he did not believe transubstantiation. A little later he says, “The poor ye will have always with you, but me ye will not have always…. for He was speaking of His bodily presence.”
Whatever else Augustine said about communion, it is certain he agrees the bodily presence is NO MORE, even as Paul confirms, “Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him NO MORE” [in the flesh!]. And THAT would include any talk of flesh in the Eucharist, metaphysical or not.
Again, Augustine, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world. But in respect of the flesh… ye will not have Him always…. In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, Me ye will not have always” (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 50.13).
If Augustine believed the bodily presence of Christ to be in the bread, then he would not say the church would always be deprived of Christ’s bodily presence (!!!).
And still yet again… “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall put forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Expositions on the Psalms, 99.8).
You are refuted.
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
Thank you for refuting yourself again. Every time you write the world gets a clearer understanding of the kind of person you are and trust me it is not a Christ-like picture.
Please give me the version of the Bible where you got the last quote in the last line of your epistle, so we can review it to the original Koine Greek.
MK: 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).
I think everyone is starting to understand what a true false witness of Christ looks like
You are refuted by your own false statements.
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
Since you quoted St. Augustine…
St. Thomas answered and refuted you long before The Council of Trent, the protestant reformation and before you were even born. It just proves you didn’t research the topic before you wrote anything and shows your blind spot and stubborn refusal to accept the help people try to give you …but you can choose to still believe you are a legend and came up with something new…the rest of the world knows you didn’t. Your argument is Catholics should not rely on “faith alone”…you won’t see the irony but everyone else will…
Article 1. Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign?
Objection 1. It seems that the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a figure, or sign. For it is written (John 6:54) that when our Lord had uttered these words: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood,” etc., “Many of His disciples on hearing it said: ‘this is a hard saying'”: to whom He rejoined: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing”: as if He were to say, according to Augustine’s exposition on Ps. 4 [On Psalm 98:9]: “Give a spiritual meaning to what I have said. You are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood which they who crucify Me are to spill. It is a mystery that I put before you: in its spiritual sense it will quicken you; but the flesh profiteth nothing.”
Objection 2. Further, our Lord said (Matthew 28:20): “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.” Now in explaining this, Augustine makes this observation (Tract. xxx in Joan.): “The Lord is on high until the world be ended; nevertheless the truth of the Lord is here with us; for the body, in which He rose again, must be in one place; but His truth is spread abroad everywhere.” Therefore, the body of Christ is not in this sacrament in very truth, but only as in a sign.
Objection 3. Further, no body can be in several places at the one time. For this does not even belong to an angel; since for the same reason it could be everywhere. But Christ’s is a true body, and it is in heaven. Consequently, it seems that it is not in very truth in the sacrament of the altar, but only as in a sign.
Objection 4. Further, the Church’s sacraments are ordained for the profit of the faithful. But according to Gregory in a certain Homily (xxviii in Evang.), the ruler is rebuked “for demanding Christ’s bodily presence.” Moreover the apostles were prevented from receiving the Holy Ghost because they were attached to His bodily presence, as Augustine says on John 16:7: “Except I go, the Paraclete will not come to you” (Tract. xciv in Joan.). Therefore Christ is not in the sacrament of the altar according to His bodily presence.
On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. viii): “There is no room for doubt regarding the truth of Christ’s body and blood; for now by our Lord’s own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and His blood is truly drink.” And Ambrose says (De Sacram. vi): “As the Lord Jesus Christ is God’s true Son so is it Christ’s true flesh which we take, and His true blood which we drink.”
I answer that, The presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Luke 22:19: “This is My body which shall be delivered up for you,” Cyril says: “Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour’s words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not.”
Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ’s Passion, according to Hebrews 10:1: “For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things.” And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ’s virtue is participated.
Secondly, this belongs to Christ’s love, out of which for our salvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the special feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a reward, saying (Matthew 24:28): “Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together.” Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (John 6:57) he says: “He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him.” Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us.
Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to John 14:1: “You believe in God, believe also in Me.” And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.
Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ’s body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ’s words. Hence Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of this heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to acknowledge the truth of the faith.
Reply to Objection 1. From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine’s words. For when Augustine says: “You are not to eat this body which you see,” he means not to exclude the truth of Christ’s body, but that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them. And by the words: “It is a mystery that I put before you; in its spiritual sense it will quicken you,” he intends not that the body of Christ is in this sacrament merely according to mystical signification, but “spiritually,” that is, invisibly, and by the power of the spirit. Hence (Tract. xxvii), expounding John 6:64: “the flesh profiteth nothing,” he says: “Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit . . . Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh . . . then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us.”
Reply to Objection 2. That saying of Augustine and all others like it are to be understood of Christ’s body as it is beheld in its proper species; according as our Lord Himself says (Matthew 26:11): “But Me you have not always.” Nevertheless He is invisibly under the species of this sacrament, wherever this sacrament is performed.
Reply to Objection 3. Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ’s body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but “sacramentally”: and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ’s body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 4. This argument holds good of Christ’s bodily presence, as He is present after the manner of a body, that is, as it is in its visible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is, invisibly, after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit. Hence Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says: “If thou hast understood” Christ’s words spiritually concerning His flesh, “they are spirit and life to thee; if thou hast understood them carnally, they are also spirit and life, but not to thee.”
OX: Since you quoted St. Augustine…St. Thomas answered and refuted you
MK: Aquinas has no more refuted me than there is a man in the moon.
OX: Your argument is Catholics should not rely on “faith alone”…
MK: As I mentioned before, you definitely must be on medication, because if you knew ANYTHING about Protestant belief and practice, it is that we DO believe that we are saved by faith alone in the merits of Christ alone. For you to suggest otherwise, shows you cannot be taken seriously. Nevertheless, I will interact with your chatter on Aquinas as the final nail in your coffin, burying you alive even as we speak.
To begin with, contrary to you, Catholics typically despise the doctrine of “Faith Alone” simply and only because they want to have room for all those “necessary for salvation” requirements that are NOT found in the Bible, like papal subordination, etc. So we understand very well why the merits of Christ do not suffice….they want to split his merits with the merit of their papal subordination, good works, swallowing the Eucharist, yada yada yada. But as it pertains to Aquinas, did you know that he believed in “Faith Alone”? His view on Transubstantiation may be summed up by one of his hymns: “Though the senses fail to see; FAITH ALONE, which sight forsaketh, shows true hearts the mystery.”
NO! The Lord does not ask us to venture into unchartered territory and forsake the testimony of our sight by “faith alone” (!!!). He gave us our senses and expects us to use them and spot a fraud when we see it. Aquinas was indeed a fraud and I don’t give a rat’s tail how religious he was. He was lost. So at the end of the day, Catholics who generally despise the doctrine of “faith alone”, follow this deluded “doctor” of the church and believe in Transubstantiation… by faith alone!
Will someone please pass me the smelling salts, I think I’m gonna faint.
The very thought that we trash the witness of our senses in favor of an undocumented miracle by faith alone, emasculates the import of being created in the very image of God who does NOT ask us to walk around with our eyes “wide shut”. Another of his hymns goes like this: “Seeing, touching, tasting, are by thee DECEIVED”…(CCC 1381),
but we say Mr. Aquinas…. is not to be believed!
Ox: [T.A. quotes Hilary] “There is no room for doubt regarding the truth of Christ’s body and blood; for now by our Lord’s own declaring and by our faith His flesh is truly food, and His blood is truly drink.”
MK: This doesn’t support your case because your opponents can say the same thing! Watch me: “By the Lord’s own declaring, Protestants believe Jesus used bread to represent his body”. Moreover, when Hilary says, “And by OUR faith his flesh is truly food” simply assumes the Catholic position is true by the faith THEY exert in the Catholic position! This is arguing in a circle. Both T.A. and Hilary are fools.
T.A. I answer that, The presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone…”
MK: Here w ego again. NO COMMENT.
T.A. He promises us His bodily presence as a reward, saying (Matthew 24:28): “Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together.”
MK: Matt 24 is no proof whatsoever for the physical manifestation of Christ in the Eucharist! It is nothing less than a gross twisting of Scripture that would give any Bible scholar a migraine headache. Now get it straight: Jesus Christ told us over 10 times that his physical presence was “GOING AWAY”, and if that wasn’t enough, he told us that if anyone claims to see the physical Christ “over here or over there”, to BELIEVE IT NOT (Matt 24:26; Mk 13:21). So when your parish priest tells you that, “Look over there in the monstrance and you will find Christ”, we will BELIEVE IT NOT.
T.A. And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.
MK: By virtue of the fact that millions of Catholics believe in VISIBLE Eucharistic miracles like bleeding and levitating wafers, wafers turning into flesh and wafers essentially having “jesus” wink back at them, it can fairly be said that most in your camp do NOT believe that God has chosen exclusively to have this miracle be invisible. Apparently, Catholics believe in a god that can’t make up his mind….visible or invisible, which will it be? I wish to have nothing to do with him. I believe in the consistent God of the Bible who never fails.
T.A. Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His bodily presence;
MK: Oh yes he does and he said so himself. Aquinas deserves a dunce cap.
T.A. Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope
MK: Fiddlesticks! The uplifter of our hope is NOT the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but the promise of the Holy Spirit who was promised in his physical ABSENCE! T.A. is nothing but a crackpot theologian.
T.A. Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ’s body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign
MK: CORRECT! This is the only truthful statement that came out of his mouth.
T.A. Reply to Objection 1. From this authority the aforesaid heretics have taken occasion to err from evilly understanding Augustine’s words.: “You are not to eat this body which you see,” he means not to exclude the truth of Christ’s body, but that it was not to be eaten in this species in which it was seen by them.
MK: Baloney. And salami. And pastrami. How, pray tell, does T.A. know that is what Augustine meant? We thank him for his opinion, but it is rejected. So….if T.A. thinks that Jesus was not asking those at the Last Supper to take a bite out of his physical body, T.A. must also mean that he didn’t mean his audience in John 6 to come and take a bite off his leg as he stood there talking to them, right? Well? Then tell me how his audience in John 6 could obey his command to eat his flesh and drink his blood, when the Eucharist would not be instituted until a year later? After all, he was asking them to do something right there on the spot, (“unless you eat”, “NOW”, present tense). How do they comply with this command? Does Jesus give commands that are impossible to obey? Protestants can obey it easily. Catholics cannot.
Of course you and 500 other people I’ve asked fail to answer the question, so kindly do not look in my direction on Judgment Day and say I didn’t warn you that your theology lacks all common sense, reason and biblical support.
T.A. for if the flesh profiteth nothing [as Jesus said] the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us
MK: Everyone knows that it was definitely “profitable” for us that the Word took on human flesh for the sake of our salvation. But T.A. is trying to make a mad dash for Christ’s flesh in the EUCHARIST to be profitable. NO! We insist that within the context of John 6 and his response to the Jews, that he was telling them that to actually eat his PHYSICAL flesh would indeed profit them nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
So what is the profit of eating his flesh? RC theology proposes many benefits (like it makes us more “charitable” and other pious nonsense no where mentioned in Scripture). But hark! I’ve been VERY generous this year if I do say so myself, and all without swallowing the RC wafer. Fancy that!
Anyway, all of the benefits derived from the Eucharist are simply pulled like a rabbit out of hat and presented to the deluded laity who are brainwashed to believe anything they say.
T.A. Reply to Objection 3. Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place,
MK: Well of course! Everyone knows that it must be by some eerie, metaphysical process which enables his physical presence to shrink down to the size of a Ritz cracker. We get that.
We just don’t believe it because Christ himself TOLD US NOT TO!
T.A. [He is in the wafer] in a special manner… “sacramentally”.
MK: That’s nothing but religious sounding mumbo jumbo. FYI, there is no such thing as a “sacramental” existence! It is 100% pure fantasy!
Attempting to justify how the metaphysical Christ can be in a million wafers at once, they invent a sacramental (mysterious) kind of existence, to solve the problem.
But in fact, there are only two categories of existence.
A. corporeal (i.e., physical)
B. non-corporeal (i.e., spiritual).
Period. End of story.
Aquinas is refuted.
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
St. Thomas quotes the bible and you disagree with the historical interpretation. Your arguments are so weak. You also need to keep up with recent events in our lifetime on faith and grace…
“The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) is a document created, and agreed to, by the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999, as a result of extensive ecumenical dialogue. It states that the churches now share “a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ.” To the parties involved, this essentially resolves the 500-year-old conflict over the nature of justification which was at the root of the Protestant Reformation. The World Methodist Council adopted the Declaration on 18 July 2006. The World Communion of Reformed Churches (representing the “80 million members of Congregational, Presbyterian, Reformed, United, Uniting, and Waldensian churches”), adopted the Declaration in 2017.(4)”. Wikipedia- Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification…It has links to all the documents.
St. Thomas writes “I answer that, The presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but BY FAITH ALONE, which rests upon Divine authority” and your answer is “no comment”. Which means you accept St. Thomas’s argument so you didn’t refute him because that is his answer.
This also is a false statement “By the Lord’s own declaring, Protestants believe Jesus used bread to represent his body” since it has been proven Luther, the father of the Protestant reformation, did not believe that and called your interpretation from the Devil. You cannot speak for anyone but yourself.
You refuted yourself by your own false statements and arrogant prideful posts.
JG: You demonstrate an exaggerated sense of your own accomplishments: “pristine glory”—really??
MK: Yes, really. I have nothing to be ashamed of by using the words “pristine glory” as it relates to my essay. When something is true, it is just TRUE, and until someone refutes it, it remains, not to my glory, but to the glory of God. You equate the CONFIDENCE I show in my position (which is not sinful) with “an exaggerated sense of my own importance” (which WOULD be sinful). That is completely untrue. Did Paul have an exaggerated sense of himself when he said, “I labored more abundantly than they all?”
He did not say that as a way of boasting, but merely to show the powerful effects of divine grace“, going on to say that it was not really him that was laboring, but the Spirit compelling him to do so. Thus, if my arguments are iron-clad and irrefutable, then the grace of God has spoken and the words do indeed stand in all their…”pristine glory” whether anyone likes it or not.
The Dumb Ox for all Seasons
What is the point of your posts? Is it to win over people to Christ…if so maybe you should rethink your position and your tone. You fail to understand no one has to refute you…your position has been a heretical position since the church began and all the historical evidence is out there to be found in easy accessible places. The Council of Trent only reaffirmed it because of Zwingli’s teachings in the 1520’s. Even Luther called your position heretical.
Why should anyone believe you? You can’t even give us the version of the Bible you use. Is it your own? It appears it has to be since you don’t believe in the early church. Since the early church put the Bible together and passed it on to us today ergo you do not really believe in the Bible only your version of it. Catholic Bishops in the early Church picked the books to be read in Church and what Sacraments were passed on by Christ. Weren’t you alive during the recent “Protestant Da Vinci Code Crisis of 2003”? Remember you have no spiritual Mother or Father.
I believe these are your words…
MK: “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!”
We know you don’t believe what you wrote because you keep referring back to the early church and it’s writings with some new insight that is not historical…you do believe the Bible was part of the early church right?
I never read in the bible that MK is the infallible interpreter…can you quote the verse so we can verify and believe? My recollection was the Chief Priests, Sadducees and scribes thought the same thing but Jesus didn’t think they has the right interpretation. Is that where we can find you listed as a Chief Priest, Sadducees or scribe in the bible?
Also your silence on Luther, the version of the bible you use and your nondefense of your misquoting The Book of Revelation proves you are a false witness. You can’t even admit you made a mistake. It is very sad.
MK: “Come OUT of [the Roman Catholic Church] my people, lest you share in her sins” (Rev 18:4).
This is found nowhere in any version of any publically known version of the Bible and specifically condemned by the Book of Revelation itself.
Remember you refute yourself by your own false statements and arrogant prideful posts.
In reading m.k.’s treatise, I find many problems. FIRST: m.k. misunderstands CCC 1376. This passage is only a paraphrase of Christ’s words about the Eucharist. It is meant to be a summary, not his exact words. Thus, Trent—and the CCC—are not “stealing from Jn. 6:53,” as M.K. alleges below. They are summarizing a doctrine and paraphrasing Christ’s words. BTW, Church Fathers going all the way back to Christ and apostles (Ignatius of Antioch) have written extensively on Eucharist and upheld doctrine of real presence.
M.K. “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.”
J.G….[You] misunderstand CCC 1376. This passage is only a paraphrase of Christ’s words about the Eucharist. It is meant to be a summary, not his exact words.
M.K…. Nonsense. As I wrote in the essay, “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). Your assumption that “It is meant to be a summary, not his exact words” assumes you have the uncanny ability to go back in time and read minds. So no. Trent must be judged by their words and their words clearly report that Christ… “SAID”. And the truth is, he did not say any such thing.
John, you hit the nail on the head. It’s not that MoJo misunderstands CCC 1376, if has been caught on those blogs and youtube videos misquoting the Early Church Fathers, the CCC and the documents of the Church.
He has been presented with a rebuttal of his argument on CCC 1376 many a time. He is like a roaring lion, looking to steal away souls for his Master Lucifer.
MoJo also fails to realize that scripture isn’t talking to him. Scripture is talking to us who are Apostolic and not to the heterodox. I am working on a video called:
40,000 denominations, cults and sects.
MoJo here will not reveal his denomination to me because he knows I will compare and contrast his denomination to many of the other denominations, cults and sects which also masquerade under the banner of being christians. Sorry MoJo, but the fact that you read the Bible and go to your denominations doesn’t make you a Christian any more that standing in your garage makes you a car (GK Chesterton).
Luther: What harm could it do if a man told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?
MoJo: Ooooh, good idea.
MoJo what is your denomination? silenceeeeeeeee
I didn’t read the whole thing (tl;dr), but I did read through the parts about transubstantiation. I have one thought to share.
Wouldn’t it be accurate for m.k. to say that he believes he is elucidating and defending the one and only truth regarding Scripture? If so, then doesn’t this make m.k. an infallible authority on what Scripture means? It seems to me that many or most of the disagreements that occur between Catholics and Protestants can be boiled down to this one issue. Here are a few question that may shed light on what I mean:
By what authority may somebody enforce the one and only correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture when there is a disagreement between Christians?
Who decides what is orthodoxy?
How is Church discipline enforced when there are multiple church authorities (ie, somebody can just go elsewhere to be affirmed in what they believe to be true)?
Daughter: I didn’t read the whole thing…
M.K. Well then, you must allow me the liberty of not taking anything you say seriously since you’ve not examined the full import of my argument. You remind me of Judge Judy, who, on occasion has lambasted the defendant for not bringing the appropriate evidence to trial when they knew darn well they were coming to court, and so, to show up empty-handed was inexcusable.
D: …but I did read through the parts about transubstantiation. I have one thought to share.
M: To be perfectly honest dear daughter, your lackluster response was precisely what I expected. After sending out the essay to over 5,000 Catholic e-mails (and counting) not one nice Catholic such as yourself has been able to formulate even one word of rebuttal. Instead, they typically switch the subject to something else, as you do here. Consequently, my argument and all its conclusions, must stand in all their pristine glory.
Nevertheless, I will entertain your comments, to which you apparently think we have no answers to.
D: Wouldn’t it be accurate for M.K. to say that he believes he is elucidating and defending the one and only truth regarding Scripture?
M: Yes. Ummm…do you see any sin in being confident in one’s postion? The Lord instituted the office of a teacher in 1 Cor 11:28 and Eph 4. He did not institute the office of a papacy or a sacerdotal priesthood, otherwise he would have told us so…IN THE SCRIPTURES (cf. John 14:2)
D: If so, then doesn’t this make M.K. an infallible authority on what Scripture means?
M: No, it certainly does not make me an infallible authority. You claim to be someone’s daughter. Well then, weren’t your parents able to raise you properly without being infallible? God uses very fallible people to accomplish his purposes. Someone doesn’t need to be infallible to be CORRECT. In any case, I am always open to correction as the case may be, but since you offered no correction, my objections to the obnoxious doctrine of Transubstantiation must stand.
D: By what authority [do you say these things]?
M: You ask the same question they asked Jesus (Mk 11:28). He chose not to answer the question and I should think I have the same liberty to do likewise. You act as if no non-Catholic has any right whatsoever to simply preach the word—- but Scripture says we CAN… “with authority” (i.e., with vim and vigor, as did Jesus per Matt 7:29 and per Titus 2:15) to the best of our ability and to the degree he sees fit to open our eyes to truth (Luke 24:45). The results are up to him to soften stoney hearts (John 3:8, Acts 16:14).
D: By what authority may somebody enforce the one and only correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture when there is a disagreement between Christians?
M: Excuse me, but I can ask YOU the same thing! What makes your response any better than mine? You would tell me, “The RCC has been commissioned by God”. Well that may sound nice to YOUR ear, but not to mine. The RCC simply argues in a circle, “We say so and that settles it”. We read in CCC 1381, “That in this sacrament are the true body of Christ and His true blood, is something that cannot be comprehended by the senses…but only by faith which relies on divine authority…”
At the get-go, the RCC informs us that any forensic evidence for the supposed miracle taking place in the Eucharist is not to be hoped for. Rather, it being “independent of our mind and our senses”, we must instead rely solely on “faith in the divine authority” of the Roman Catholic church. Excuse me, but the Bible doesn’t even hint at the totalitarian “divine authority” of the church at Rome; not even in the book of ROOOOMANS, where one would expect to find it if the claim were true. Hence, if the Berean’s in Acts 17 checked the Scriptures with what even the apostle Paul was teaching, we will likewise do the same with papal claims as well. And we say that for Jesus to demand that it is necessary for salvation that we partake of the Eucharist…something that they admit “cannot be comprehended by the senses”, is beyond ridiculous.
D: How is Church discipline enforced when there are multiple church authorities (ie, somebody can just go elsewhere to be affirmed in what they believe to be true)?
M: I will let someone else answer that:
“When the Roman Church draws invidious comparisons between its superior unity and the “scandal” or “tragedy” of Protestant sectarianism, this is an illusion fostered by the way in which the Roman Church has chosen to draw the boundaries in the first place. By setting itself up as the point of reference and standard of comparison with all those— “schismatics”, they present nothing but a self-serving contrast. By casting the terms of the debate, they have rigged the outcome in its favor.
God put up with a wide diversity of sects and schools of thought in first century Judaism. We read of Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, Essenes, Zealots, Therapeutae, Jewish Gnostics, Jewish Platonists, Qumranic separatists, as well as the Rabbinical parties of Hillel and Shamai. Doubtless there were many additional groups that our partial and partisan sources have failed to preserve for posterity. Yet God never saw fit to install an infallible Jewish Magisterium in order to prevent this plurality of viewpoints. So Rome’s theology is based on nothing more than a
seat-of-the-pants hunch which merely assumes Divine Providence has ordained infallibility to Vatican residents. The precedent of God’s former dealings with his people goes against that expectation. If we find all this diversity and dissension under the OT dispensation, why assume that the NT economy must operate according to a contrary set of priorities? Wouldn’t the Catholic rationale apply with equal force to the OT church? If Christians require the services of a living Magisterium, wouldn’t the Old Covenant community be under the same necessity? Yet it’s clear from the Gospels that none of the rival parties spoke for God in any definitive sense. The priesthood was the only faction with any institutional standing under the Mosaic Covenant, and its members were frequently and fundamentally MISTAKEN in their construal of its ethical obligations, such as the matter of putting to death their prophesied Messiah (!). So much for a divine teaching office to ensure unity and fidelity.
One of the problems with these utopian scenarios is that they’re premature. Utopia awaits heaven and the final state. So much of Catholic apologetics has this armchair quality to it. It makes such large assumptions, thinking God would never allow error into the Roman vicinity. I say, get up off your chair and take a look out the window! When I observe the world around me, I see that God allows quite a LOT to occur.”
D: Who decides what is orthodoxy?
M: Obviously, God decides, and we must all wait till Judgment Day to see who was right and who gets a passport to hell. In the meantime, I notice by your question the mere assumption of the superiority, supremacy and infallibility of the RCC. You leave the impression there does not exist ANY disagreement within the RC camp, and then proceed to stick a rose in-between your teeth pointing at Protestant factions. This accusation falls flat in light of Scripture deliberately allowing for a competition of viewpoints so that the position God approves of will emerge by process of comparison and contrast (1 Kings 18, Prov 18:17, 1 Cor 11:19).
For example, Catholics always like to tell us that since the passover lamb was eaten, we ought to “eat Jesus” because he was the passover lamb. But wait a minute now. What they NEVER admit is that there is an equally satisfying alternative; namely, that since the sin offering was never to be eaten (Leviticus 4) and Jesus was obviously a sin offering, we then do NOT have to literally eat Jesus!
Thus, we have two choices: Either eat the Messiah, the passover lamb, or do not eat the Messiah, the sin offering. We choose the latter based on Trent being exposed as a non-prophet organization, leaving us no other option but to reject the Catholic view (Deut 18:22, Jer 23:30-40). We choose the latter because the prohibition against drinking blood has never been abolished. And we choose the latter because the universal revulsion against cannibalism leads us to “have FAITH in his blood” (Romans 3:25), rather than drinking it, which eliminates the need for Transubstantiation altogether.
I approved this comment with hesitation. I need to lay down some ground rules that will need to be followed, or I will not be able to approve any more comments. First, all comments need to be charitable. Second, comments must be brief. m.k., your original letter was over 5,000 words. Nothing that I have written on this website is that long. Most publications have an 800- to 1,000-word limit. The downside to long-windedness is that you don’t get read. Please keep that in mind. I will try to read your letter. If you are not getting any responses from Catholics, it’s not because they don’t have an answer. It’s because they haven’t had the time to read your letter.JG
I hesitated to respond at all, realizing that not responding to the full essay might not be respectful, or at least might be perceived as disrespect. It is obvious you spent a lot of time to write what you wrote, and I didn’t intend disrespect by not responding to it. I’ve been online since the late 1990s, and I know that these sorts of exchanges rarely change minds. Moreover, the problem between Protestants and Catholics, at least as I perceive it, is one of authority. Citing more and/or better scripture verses, or crafting better arguments, often does not resolve disputes between Christians of good will. Which means there needs to be a final authority to resolve the dispute and to enforce what is the correct interpretation of scripture and what is orthodoxy. I wrote about that problem here: https://everybodysdaughter.wordpress.com/2017/10/30/for-reformation-day-bible-conundrum/
It is true that God does decide what is orthodoxy, but I didn’t craft the question well. What I said, “Who…” I meant, “Which human authority…” It is a similar question as to this one: “Who decides the canon?” For example, did you read all 27 books of the NT, as well as all of the other letters that were circulating in the early Church, and decide for yourself which are inspired by the Holy Spirit? Perhaps you did, but not everybody can do that. God in his mercy gave us an authority that we can rely upon. At least, that makes more sense to me thant a “me and my Bible” approach that requires me to discern what God ordained as orthodoxy all on my own. THAT is what sounds unmerciful to me. Because if I don’t get it right, it might mean that I end up in hell forever.
May I make a suggestion? If you have a blog, consider breaking your letter into 5-10 shorter essays and publishing them in a series. Then invite Catholics to respond to any or all of them. You might get more traction that way. Asking strangers to read 5000 words, then declaring victory when they don’t, is a spurious victory in my book..
Take care and I wish you all the best.
Your thoughts on transubstantiation emphasize Christ’s words at the consecration. Have you considered Christ’s words at John chapter 6?
J.G. Your thoughts on transubstantiation emphasize Christ’s words at the consecration. Have you considered Christ’s words at John chapter 6?
M.K. Yes. Your intro to my essay admits to not having time to read the whole thing, so I would suggest you do so. Unfortunately, the way it was posted eliminated all spacing and subject headings so I can’t lead you to the exact paragraph.
J.G.: I approved [your] comment with hesitation.
M.K. Why? Point out to me one objectionable sentence that crosses any biblical boundaries.
J.G. all comments need to be charitable
M.K. Everything I said was for the good of the reader. If the truth hurts, so be it. If I didn’t care about the issues, I would do nothing. Charity is fine in most instances, but not in EVERY instance, especially when we’re dealing with false doctrine. The Bible completely repudiates the “charity church mouse” appeal for any and all circumstances and I am tired of constantly being faced with this complaint from Catholics —who cannot support their charity church mouse appeal under any and all circumstances! I specifically told you in my essay that the Council of Trent categorized their adversaries as “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. You approve of THAT, and yet find something objectionable in what I wrote to “Daughter”, which did not even come CLOSE to Trent’s vocabulary?
Furthermore, was Jesus “charitable” when he insulted the Pharisees 16 times in Matt 23 alone? No he was not, nor did he intend to be.
Or In 1 & 2 John, he calls certain persons “liars” and “antichrists”.
Oh my, how uncharitable!
Or John the Baptist, (“ye brood of vipers”).
Or Stephen, “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.” (Acts 7:51).
Regarding atheists, are we not to conclude from Psalm 14:1 and 53:1 that they are all “fools”? Or from 1 Tim 4:2, Paul refers to “hypocritical liars”, and in 5:13, he writes of “gossips and busybodies”. In 2 John, he does not simply say that the theology of certain people is antichristian (though it is), nor does he say that they speak lies (though they do). The fact is that he calls the people antichrists and liars because that is what they ARE. He judges their persons by their theology, and commands the elect lady and her children to do the same. Moreover, Jesus states that he “HATES” false doctrine in the book of Rev, and congratulates those who investigate those who “claim to be apostles and are not, and has found them liars”. This is EXACTLY what I’m doing.
If you disagree with biblical protocol, what right, may I ask, do you even bother calling yourself a Christian?
Essentially, I am telling you that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is the misbegotten enemy of God’s only begotten Son, and have provided evidence to that effect. You, on the other hand, have offered nothing as it pertains to my essay, neither have you proved that we ought to forget about being made in the image of God (who states his dire disagreement with many things in the strongest way possible from Genesis to Revelation) and tell us why we should all walk around with a limp wrist and a feather duster when confronting our adversaries. That is not the way it works in warfare, neither is it the way it works in WORD-fare.
J.G: If you are not getting any responses from Catholics, it’s not because they don’t have an answer. It’s because they haven’t had the time to read your letter
M.K: No time? But it appears they have all the time in the world to read the lengthy catechism, go to Mass, go to World Youth Day, go their seminars on why Catholicism is so wonderful, and hours on end to blog and create one website after another belittling Protestant theology! They can dish it out, oh yes, but apparently they just can’t take it. Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to put forth their case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines them”. Catholics simply do not like to be cross-examined! Too, “Catholic Answers”, which spends all their entire adult lives fighting against Protestants (not Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses or anyone else, only Protestants!) now refuses to publicly debate because…”it would bear no fruit”.
Huh??? Why then, do they continue to publish their magazine? Out of their own mouth, they have admitted their work is “fruitless”.
Consequently, the “Catholics don’t have any time” excuse must be abandoned and exposed for what it is: just that….a phony excuse. They know that Protestants are the closest thing, second to them, to knowing the truth, and so it’s quite understandable that the very thing they fear most is a Protestant with a Bible in one hand and their catechism in the other.
m.k:”To be perfectly honest dear daughter, your lackluster response was precisely what I expected. After sending out the essay to over 5,000 Catholic e-mails (and counting) not one nice Catholic such as yourself has been able to formulate even one word of rebuttal. Instead, they typically switch the subject to something else, as you do here. Consequently, my argument and all its conclusions, must stand in all their pristine glory.
Nevertheless, I will entertain your comments, to which you apparently think we have no answers to.”
This is what I am talking about. Very uncharitable. But more than that, inaccurate. Her comments were excellent. You also demonstrate an exaggerated sense of your own accomplishments: “pristine glory”—really??
Hi John, Please make your readers aware that m.k., aka MoJo, aka gatecrasher, aka Eucharistic Angel has been thoroughly refuted. The debate was closed and the first 44 comments were just between MoJo and Timothy P.
If anybody encounters MoJo in the future debating anybody, please refer them to this site so they can understand that MoJo just spews diarrhea out of his mouth. He is not knowledgeable as he wants people to think.
He has also lost the Zell Challenge on the heresy of Penal Substitution. This can be found on the Zell Challenge video channel.