Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!


The oman atholic bserver

Communion-Eucharist

What's on this Page


Page 6: Revised 11/04/1999

On this page: |Rome's Word on Communion |Summary of Rome's Teachings | A Curse On You! | Communion or Eucharist: What's the Difference? | This Is My Body | Jewish Customs | Context of Last Supper | Common Usage of Terms | Do the Fathers Consent? | The Miracle Without Evidence? | Rome's Appeal to Paganism | Rome's Appeal to Scripture | Newton's Law and the Eucharist? |The Real Source of Rome's Eucharist | Official Catholic Documents on Communion | Council of Trent on Eucharist | Is Rome's Anathema Really a Condemnation to Hell? |

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST! BE NOTIFIED OF UPDATES AS THEY OCCUR!Click here to be notified of updates to this site


What Rome Says of Communion

To understand the Roman Catholic position on Holy Communion (which Rome calls 'The Eucharist' under normal circumstances, or 'Holy Viaticum' if given to a dying person), we must start with the official Roman Catholic documentation - their catechisms and councils. Rather than force you to read every single item, I have placed all the quotations at the bottom of this page and referred to them as needed in the text.

Summary of Key Teachings of Rome on Communion

The Roman Catholic Church:

| Top of Page | What's on this Page | Comments | Next Topic: Communion vs Eucharist | Table of Contents |

Communion or Eucharist: What's the Difference?

Catholics and Protestants alike use the term 'communion' or 'holy communion' with respect to the eating of bread and wine (or grape juice, also fruit of the vine) as commanded by Jesus. There the similarity ends. Protestants view communion in the context of its origin, the Last Supper, as a memorial of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Protestants understand communion as the memorial, the remembrance that Jesus said it was.

Catholics, on the other hand, believe they are eating God! This difference is so great that there can be no real dialog of agreement on this topic. The difference is so great that Rome prefers to identify this sacrament using different terms, such as 'Eucharist,' 'holy Eucharist,' or 'Viaticum' to distinguish their wafer-god from the mere bread and wine of the Christian churches. Thus, one should never, ever think that they are discussing the same thing when using the term 'communion' with Roman Catholics.

As a former Roman Catholic, my view of communion alone (never mind other points of difference) brings me under a whole collection of curses issued by Rome. This 'believe what we tell you or we will damn you to hell' attitude of Rome I find a tad offensive.

This Is My Body

The key to Rome's teaching on Communion lies in the word of Jesus at the Last Supper when he said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood." (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24). Rome says we must accept these words as being literal. That is, Rome wants you to believe that at its Mass, a piece of bread is magically transformed into something totally different in both kind and substance. Mind you, there is no evidence for this miracle: you are supposed to just believe it because Rome says it. So what you have in the Roman Catholic Mass is a created being creating the Creator who created him! Think about it!

Jewish Beliefs about Eating Flesh with Blood

One major objection to a literal interpretation of the words of Jesus is the Jewish prohibition against eating flesh and blood:
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." (Genesis 9:4)
"For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." (Leviticus 17:14)
"Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh. Thou shalt not eat it; thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water. Thou shalt not eat it; that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD." (Deuteronomy 12: 23-25)

If He was nothing else, Jesus Christ was a most observant Jew. He spoke often of the Law of God, and said that he had, in fact, come to fulfill it. That law forbade Jews to eat flesh with blood. Jesus, Christians believe, is God. Thus, Jesus Himself created this law. For the believing Christian, these are not opinions, they are Scriptural facts! How likely is it that Jesus would teach the Apostles to break the very law He created? And remember that Jesus said, of that law:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5: 17-18)
QUESTION: Does the Law of God forbid the eating of flesh with blood? (See Leviticus 7:26-27; 17:10-11) Your answer?
QUESTION: Was this Law created by Jesus, who is God? Your answer?
QUESTION: Do you think that Jesus would teach others to break His own Law? Your answer?
QUESTION: Do you think it is possible that Jesus was not speaking literally, but metaphorically? Your answer?
QUESTION: Why does Rome insist on teaching what God so clearly forbids? Your answer?




| Top of Page | What's on this Page | Comments | Next Topic: Context of Last Supper | Table of Contents |

Context of the Last Supper

A cardinal precept when studying Scripture is that we must consider any word, verse or sentence in light of the context in which it appears. The reason is obvious: terms and expressions do not usually have a life of their own; they take their meaning from the context in which they are used. For example, if I toss the term 'sink' at you, can you tell me what it means? Of course not! You need to know the context first. 'Sink' could be that hole in your kitchen counter, or what happens to a boat with a hole in it, or what happens when a golf ball drops into the cup, or to your stomach when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Equally true with Scripture. Taken out-of-context, you can make a term or expression mean almost anything at all. This is exactly what Rome has done with the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. Because it fits Rome's theology, she insists Jesus spoke literally. If Jesus said, "This is my body." while holding a piece of bread, why, then, he must have meant it literally, right?

Wrong! Jesus often referred to himself in metaphorical terms. Here are just a few examples:
What Jesus Said Literal or Metaphorical?

Check your answer as:

[ ]Literal [ ]Metaphorical

"I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?" (Luke 12:49) Did Jesus actually set a physical, burning fire on the earth? Of course not! Yet he said this 'fire' was 'already kindled."

[ ]Literal [ ]Metaphorical

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35, 48) Is Jesus a slice of Jewish rye? Have you taken the Eucharist? Well, if Jesus meant it literally, is follows that you have never been hungry or thirsty since! Right? Jesus said so, in the very same 'literal sentence.' How can you avoid it?

[ ]Literal [ ]Metaphorical

"This (referring to himself) is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die." (John 6:50) Did many of you ancestors take the Eucharist? If so, you must have a very big family of very, very old people. If you took it, you now expect to live forever, right? If Jesus was being literal, you MUST believe the WHOLE statement, not just part of it, as being literal.

[ ]Literal [ ]Metaphorical

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:51)
"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:46) Is Jesus a giant light bulb? Since you have taken the Eucharist, have you ever been in the dark? If Jesus is being literal, you must answer, 'No.'

[ ]Literal [ ]Metaphorical

"Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep." (John 10:7) Is Jesus a matrix of boards on hinges down at the pasture? If you have taken the Eucharist, are you therefore a cute little bug-infested, wooly sheep? Do you live in a pasture?

[ ]Literal [ ]Metaphorical

"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." (John 10:9)
"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." (John 10:11) Is Jesus a badly dress, smelly guy with a crook in his hand and a slingshot in his hip pocket? A literal interpretation demands it.

[ ]Literal [ ]Metaphorical

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman." (John 15:1) Is Jesus a real vine, creeping along, sending out branches that bear some kind of edible fruit? Does the Father now and then prune-off the branches? Are you just a dumb, stupid branch of a vine? If I look, will I see pumpkins growing on you? If Jesus is being literal, you must believe it!

[ ]Literal [ ]Metaphorical

"Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." (John 15:2)
(John 15:5) I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing
"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." (John 15:3) Having listened to the words of Jesus, is it true that you don't need a bath?

[ ]Literal [ ]Metaphorical

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:26-28) Was the bread Jesus was holding his literal physical body? Was the cup of wine his physical blood? Which does the context suggest: a literal or a metaphorical meaning to His words?

[ ]Literal [ ]Metaphorical





My questions above are, of course, rhetorical. The answers are very obvious, are they not? You don't have to hold a degree in Cannon Law or Theology to understand what Jesus meant by these sayings. It would be absurd to apply a literal meaning when Jesus says he is a door, a vine, a light, a shepherd, a piece of bread and so forth. Yet this is precisely what Rome asks you to do when he refers to bread and wine as his body, his blood. And you don't find Rome applying a literal interpretation to the words of Jesus anywhere else, do you?! No, just when it comes to the bread and wine issue. Where is Rome's honesty and consistency?
QUESTION: Why does Rome insist on a literal meaning when Jesus spoke of bread and wine - but a metaphorical meaning everywhere else? Your answer?
QUESTION: If the bread and wine really are the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, would that not make you a cannibal if you eat it? Your answer?




| Top of Page | What's on this Page | Comments | Next Topic: Common Usage Determines Meaning | Table of Contents |

Common Usage Determines Meaning Too

I have here a photograph of my wonderful wife, Rose. I also have a photograph of my daughters. Let's say I show them to you and say, "This is my wife; these are my children." Is there any chance that you will assume I am married to a 3-by-5 photo, or that I am the father of another 3-by-5 photo? Not on your life! You fully understand that my meaning is that these photos represent my wife and children.

Or let's say I am describing an accident scene. On the dining room table I place a salt shaker, a pepper shaker, a cup, and two crossed knives. Then, pointing to the salt shaker, I say, "This is me, approaching the intersection." Will you assume that I am, therefore, a salt shaker? I doubt it.

What I'm getting at is that Jesus, like all of us, often used figures of speech to get a point across. When Jesus referred to Himself as a door, a light, a vine, etc., he was using a figure of speech. When he referred to bread as his body, and wine as his blood it was also a figure of speech. In common usage, the expression "this is" is commonly understood to mean "this represents."

As He finished that Passover Seder (meal), Jesus confirmed the metaphorical nature of His words by saying, "Do this in remembrance of me."
"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:24-15)




Thus did Jesus clearly establish that the eating of bread and wine, a customary part of the Passover Seder, was to be performed as a memorial, as a remembrance of him.
QUESTION: If I show you a picture of my wife and say, "This is my wife." Do you assume I am married to a photograph? Your answer?
QUESTION: If point to a salt shaker and say, "This is my body." does the shaker magically become my physical body? Your answer?
QUESTION: When Jesus said he is a door, a vine, a light, do you assume he magically became a door, a light, or a vine? Your answer?
QUESTION: When Jesus said, of the bread, "This is my body..." is it possible that he spoke metaphorically? Your answer?
QUESTION: When Jesus said, "This cup is the new testament..." (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), did He speak literally? That is, do we now have to look to a drinking cup as a 'testament.?" Your Answer?
QUESTION: Is it possible that Rome deliberately assigns a literal interpretation where none is implied, just to justify her pagan version of communion? Your answer?




| Top of Page | What's on this Page | Comments | Next Topic: Fathers On Communion | Table of Contents |

Fathers of the Church on Communion

As established elsewhere at this site, the Roman Catholic Church says that it teaches as dogma or doctrine, only that which has the 'universal consent of the Fathers.' Thus we should be able to query those Fathers and find that they unanimously teach transubstantiation - Rome's version of Communion. Do we find it?

We do not. What do we find? For one thing, we find almost no mention of it at all for the first three hundred years of 'the Fathers." The first mention of it is by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century.(1) We also find that Transubstantiation was not declared an article of Roman Catholic faith until the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215 A.D.!

Consider, if you will, the following statement of Father of the Church Justin Martyr:

"It is quite evident that this prophecy (Isaiah 33:13-19) also alludes to the bread which our Christ gave to us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom he also suffered, and also the cup which he taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood." (Martyr, Justin, Dialog with Trypho, 2nd Century A.D.)

If Justin Martyr had believed in transubstantiation, he sure as heck missed a perfect chance to say so in this letter! Rather did he proclaim, in essence, that the bread was just that - bread, and was used as Jesus had directed us - as a memorial, in commemoration of His sacrifice on the Cross. This, and other writings of the Fathers of the Church tell a convincing story that transubstantiation was an unknown, unpracticed belief.
QUESTION: How can Rome claim the 'Universal consent of the Fathers' for her doctrine of Transubstantiation, when that 'consent' is not present? Your answer?
QUESTION: How can Rome claim she has always taught Transubstantiation when it took twelve-hundred years to declare it an article of faith? Your answer?

| Top of Page | What's on this Page | Comments | Next Topic: A Curse Upon You! | Table of Contents |

A Curse Upon You!

If you are a non-Catholic, or a Roman Catholic who just does not believe your church when it comes to the Eucharist, know that the loving Roman Catholic Church curses you - damns you to Hell, if you disagree with her! Actually, Rome has a long list of such curses ready to hurl at you at the slightest sign of dissent. Click here to read just a few of them.

Catholic's Objections to This Statement

Several Roman Catholic surfers have tried to 'straighten me out' on this topic. They tell me that Rome's 'anathema' is not equivalent to a curse, or to damning someone to hell. Further, they inform me that there is a big difference between an excommunication and an anathema. I have considered their comments and done more research. The results? Additional proof that what I have written here is completely true, and an accurate representation of Rome's teaching and practice in this area. Click here to see the evidence.

Now, please read the following statements, also from Rome:
1782 "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. 'He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.'"

1885 "In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice."

1800 "A human being must always obey the certain judgement of his conscience."

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Copyright 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

QUESTION: Can you see how Rome speaks with a forked tongue? On one hand she curses you for following your conscience, on the other hand, she tells you that you must follow your conscience! Which is correct? Does Rome bless you or curse you in this matter? Your answer?
QUESTION: What does it say of an organization that finds it necessary to damn to Hell all who do not agree with it? Your answer?
QUESTION: How is it possible to enter into an ecumenical relationship with a church that curses you for your disagreement? Your answer?

| Top of Page | What's on this Page | Comments | Next Topic: Miracle Without Evidence! | Table of Contents |



The Miracle Without Evidence

Roman Catholic apologist Father(2) Peter Skarga (Internet address = www.marytown.org/mi/zine/76-08/early.htm) offers an interesting defense of the Eucharist at his internet home page.
"God blessed the fish in the water and they multiplied, and his word still has its effect. He blessed the human race that it increase and multiply, and the forces of that word are still at work. He blessed the five loaves of bread so that five thousand were filled. How then was this blessing to be void and empty when, as writes the Holy Writ he blessed the bread with his omnipotent word and said: 'This is my body, this is my blood.'? . . . Man's blessing of matter does not change its nature. But God's blessing, serving his will and his word, is powerful and changes the essence of things."

The reverend Skarga accurately presents the position of Rome, and uses Rome's best argument to 'prove' transubstantiation. Now the question is, does his argument hold up under scrutiny?

No, it does not. He could have quoted a dozen real miracles, but would only have dug a deeper pit into which to fall. Why? Think about it. By placing the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation alongside real, accepted miracles, Reverend Skarga is saying that there are powerful parallels between them. That is to say that all the miracles have at the very least, a single common denominator that unquestionably defines them as miracles. Do such parallels exist? Do accepted miracles in Scripture prove transubstantiation?

No. They don't. In fact, they prove quite the opposite! Let's examine a few real miracles to see if there are any common characteristics that would link them, in kind, to transubstantiation.

Do you see the common thread that runs through these, and all other real miracles? Yes, you are correct. In all cases, there was a great deal of physical evidence! People handled and ate the loaves and fishes, all of Israel saw the Jordan river back-up, and they crossed it on dry ground. At the wedding of Cana, the people drank wine that moments before had been water. In the desert crossing, the Israelites saw, handled and ate the quail and manna provided by God. People saw and spoke with Lazarus and the widow's son. The resurrected Jesus was seen by the disciples on the Emmaus Road, by all the Apostles, by Mary, by James, by Peter, and by five-hundred others. The resurrected Jesus was touched by others, and ate food in their presence. How much physical evidence do you need? Also, in all cases, the physical evidence gave rise to faith in the observers.

Check out all the other miracles of God and you will see the same thing! In all miracles, there was visible, tangible, edible, measurable physical evidence! In all cases, the evidence influenced the faith of the observers. Nothing was left to doubt, nothing to conjecture. Never do you find room for the question, "Hmm. I wonder what God meant by that?!" God saw fit to accompany all his miracles with sufficient evidence to convince the most hardened sceptic.

Now revisit the Last Supper, and consider the words of Jesus - "This is my body..." (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24). The bread he held and passed around the table was bread before and after Jesus spoke - right? Is there even a shred of physical evidence that it magically became flesh and blood? No, there isn't. Nothing changed, and there is no indication that the 'miracle' had a whit of influence on the faith of the observers.

The simple fact is that there is not a single miracle of God, or miracle of Jesus, or miracle of the Apostles that was not proven by physical evidence! Not one. Yet Rome would have you believe that a miracle called transubstantiation took place at the Last Supper and further, that Jesus gave a unique power to his Apostles to repeat this miracle ad infinitum.
QUESTION: Did all the miracles of the Bible include tangible, physical evidence that a miracle had occurred? Your answer?
QUESTION: Did all the miracles of the Bible influence the faith on the part of the observers? Your answer?
QUESTION: Did the communion of the Last Supper include any tangible, physical evidence that a miracle had occurred? Your answer?
QUESTION: In what way did the communion of the Last Supper resemble any (much less all) the miracles of the Bible? Your answer?
QUESTION: What can possibly explain this difference between the miracles of the Bible and the communion of the Last Supper? Your answer?






The only possible explanation for the last question above is the Jesus spoke metaphorically, or symbolically, when referring to the bread and wine as His body and blood. Those present understood the he was saying, "This bread represents my body this wine represents my blood."

| Top of Page | What's on this Page | Comments | Next Topic: Symbolic Interpretation? | Table of Contents |



Can a Symbolic Interpretation be Justified?

Having now proved beyond shadow of doubt that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and not literally, about the bread and wine, we must, as good investigators, turn the questions around and ask, "Can we justify, or prove, that Jesus spoke metaphorically and not literally?" Are there other Scriptures we can point to as support, as evidence for it?

Indeed there are. The very same Scriptures used by Rome to 'prove' a literal interpretation!


TO BE CONTINUED


| Top of Page | What's on this Page | Comments | Next Topic: Pagan Philosophy | Table of Contents |

Rome's Appeal to Pagan Philosophy

The Roman Catholic Faith, by John L. KcKenzie, S.J., Copyright 1969, says, on Page 148:

"The Catholic assertion (on the Eucharist) is based on the Aristotelian and medieval philosophy of substance and accident, defined in the schools respectively as that which exists in itself (substance) and that which exists in something else (accident). The bread and wine become substantially something else, but accidentally are unchanged. Thus the body and blood of Christ are not seen, touched, or tasted; no substance is the object of the senses. But what is present is the substance, for only a substance can be present. The body and blood of Christ do not take on the sensible qualities of bread and wine."

My first observation is that any Christian organization that finds it necessary to appeal to pagan philosophical systems as justification for her own dogmas, is seriously suspect! Could it be that she does so because she has no valid, supportable evidence in the Scriptures? Could it be because her teaching is contradicted by Scripture? Could it have anything to do with the fact that her doctrine of a wafer-god came, not from Scripture, but from ancient pagan religions (which, in fact, it does)?
QUESTION: Why must Rome appeal to pagan philosophy to prove her dogma of transubstantiation? Your answer?
QUESTION: If transubstantiation came from the Word of God, why can Rome not use the Word of God to prove it, instead of Aristotle? Your anwser?
QUESTION: Is it possible that Rome must turn to pagan religions to justify her dogma because that is the only place it is found? Your answer?






| Top of Page | What's on this Page | Comments | Table of Contents |



Rome's Appeal to Scripture

Rome's favorite Scripture, which she offers to prove that her wafer-god is really the true, actual, flesh-and-blood body of Jesus Christ is this one:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" (John 6: 47-60)

A surface reading of this passage could, indeed, lead one to conclude that Rome is correct. Her correctness, however, depends upon our interpreting this passage of Scripture in a fully literal sense.

Let us assume that Rome is correct, and that this passage is to be taken literally. It is a rule of study that, if part of a passage is literal, then the entire passage is literal. One cannot, arbitrarily, select just a portion, call it literal, and claim that the rest is not literal. That would be most dishonest, don't you think?

What conclusions does a literal view lead to? Here are a few:

This leads to some obvious questions:
QUESTION: Non-Catholics don't eat Rome's Eucharist. Why are they still alive? Your answer?
QUESTION: Since your Catholic, great-great-grandparents ate Rome's Eucharist every Sunday for eighty years. Why are they not still alive? Your answer?
QUESTION: As a good Catholic, you eat Rome's Eucharist very often. Do you thus have the right to expect to live forever? Your answer?




A puzzlement? Yes, it certainly is. If you are intellectually honest, and if you believe what Rome tells you about her wafer-god, you must believe that all non-Catholics, since they don't eat the Eucharist, must now be dead. You must also believe that all your good Catholic ancestors, whose graves you visit on Memorial Day, are not really dead and buried, but remain very much alive. As a good, practicing Catholic yourself, you must believe that you will never die.

Why? Because a literal interpretation demands literal results. There is no way to avoid it. You can't, as Rome would have you believe, think that Jesus spoke literally about His body and blood being Rome's Eucharist, and at the same time, in the same sentence, the same thought, the same breath, declare that He spoke figuratively about the results of eating his flesh and blood. One cannot declare that half a sentence is literal while the other half is not. This is a favorite trick of the cults, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses (who have, like Rome, made an art of wresting Scripture that way).

Good Scriptural exegesis, along with reason and logic, demand that we consider the entire Scripture - not just a tiny part of it. They also demand reasonable consistency with other, related Scriptures, which you definitely do not get from Rome!

Now, examine the Scripture for yourself. Can you see that Jesus was clearly speaking of belief in, and acceptance of Himself as being necessary for eternal life, for salvation? A symbolic interpretation of this passage is fully self-consistent, and is also completely consistent with all the other Scriptures that speak of Jesus vis-a-vis salvation, such as:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3: 14-16)
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3:36)
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24)
(John 6:40) And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John 11: 25-26)
"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)

Here are just six of the many passages that discuss eternal life, or salvation, vis-a-vis belief in Jesus Christ. You see nothing in these passages that even remotely suggest that one must literally eat the flesh and blood of Christ to be saved! In all cases, Scripture tells us that salvation is a matter of belief, or faith in Jesus Christ. Period.
QUESTION: Can you now see that Jesus spoke figuratively about His body and blood? Your Answer?
QUESTION: Can you now see that Rome deliberately wrests, or mis-uses Scripture to 'prove' her false teaching on the Eucharist? Your Answer?
QUESTION: Now that you know the Truth of Scripture, are you ready to place your faith in Jesus Christ, and Him alone, for your salvation? Your Answer?




| Top of Page | What's on this Page | Comments | Table of Contents |



Newton's Law and the Eucharist

Newton's second law of thermodynamics states, in essence, that anything left to itself runs-down, or disintegrates. We easily see this law in action wherever there is neglect, such as in a house that is not properly maintained. Left to itself, that house will eventually rot and decompose. The same thing happens with a slice of bread that is ignored. Perhaps you have seen this too? The bread gets stale and crusty, then develops green mould, attracts bugs, and eventually rots.

Well, considering Rome's assertion that her Eucharist, her wafer-god, is 'transubstantiated' into the true, real, body and blood of Jesus Christ, we are forced to ask, "Is Newton's second law suspended?" Why this question? Simple. . . if the unleavened bread is no longer bread, but after its 'consecration' it is so totally changed that nothing of the bread and wine remains. . . reason and logic demand that such a bit of bread must defy Newton's law.

Why do I say this? Because Scripture compels me, where it says:

"For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (Psalm 16:10)
"And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption." (Acts 13: 34-37)

If Rome is correct in claiming that the bread has been so transformed that it is no longer bread, but the real body and blood of Jesus Christ, God's holy one, it cannot become corrupt; it cannot rot and disintegrate. If, on the other hand, the Eucharist does become corrupt, if it does rot and disintegrate, then it cannot be God's holy one, Jesus Christ.

You cannot have it both ways!

Now we must ask whether or not consecrated hosts become corrupt if ignored. The answer is a most provable "Yes." If you leave consecrated hosts alone, within a week or so the mold begins to appear, just like it does with a slice of regular bread. As the bacteria take over, it turns white, then green and yucky. This is precisely why the priests are compelled to eat all such hosts before nature takes over and proves Rome wrong again.

In the typical Roman Catholic Church, at least one consecrated host is left inside a ciborium (chalice, or cup) during the week. This is for the purpose of letting the people drop by and worship the bread during the week. The priest must ensure that these particular hosts are consumed before they rot. I know . . . as a altar boy for several years I saw it happen many times.

Are you a sincere Roman Catholic? Do you doubt what I just told you? Are you still convinced that the little wafer is really the Body and Blood of Christ, and no longer just plain bread? Alright. You can prove it for yourself. Now you can take communion in your hand as well as your mouth, right? Right. OK. Next time, prepare ahead of time. Buy or make two small, sterile containers. Bring one container to church. Go get communion in your hand. Don't eat it. Go back to your seat and slip the host into the sterile container. Bring it home. Put a small piece of regular bread in the other container. Put both containers in your bureau drawer. Wait and watch. If your church tells the truth, that wafer of bread will remain unchanged, incorrupt, undecayed forever. At the same time, the regular bread should decay per Newton's law. Wait and watch for a few weeks. Then make your own decision.

Are you reluctant to make such a test? Do you Feel squeamish about it? Which do you fear most - committing a sacrilege, or finding out the truth? Rest assured that God does not at all mind being tested. More than once God invited man to try, or test Him:

"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." (Malachi 3:10)
"Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." (Isaiah 1: 17-18)

God is not afraid to be tested. Rome is afraid to be tested. How about you?
QUESTION: Since the Eucharist is totally transformed, such that only the appearances of bread and wine remain, your Catholic wafer-god should never decay, right? Your answer?
QUESTION: Is the truth important enough to you to TEST this claim of Rome as suggested in the text above? Your answer?
QUESTION: It has now been two months since you put your wafer-god in a sterile container with regular bread in a similar container. What shape are they both in today? Your answer?

The Real Source of Rome's Eucharist

If, in fact, Rome's Eucharist is not the same Communion of Scripture, where did it come from? Is there any historical record of a religious system that had a wafer-god at the center of its worship? If so, what was that system? Also, we need to ask why does Rome insist upon a perfectly round, flat wafer, when, at the Last Supper, a regular loaf of bread was used? Why the difference, and where did it arise?

Return with me now, to the Plains of Shinar (modern-day Iraq), to an ancient city close by the Euphrates River. %%%% (to be continued)

Now, why does Rome insist upon her Eucharist being in the form of a flat, round wafer? Surely she did not take this form from the Gospel account of the Last Supper, because there, the bread was just a loaf of bread. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Old Testament that specifies the form of the bread - only that it must be without leaven.

Once again we must turn our eyes to the pagan religions to find an answer. As it is with so much of Rome's customs, her form of communion was 'borrowed' from paganism and 'christianized.' We need look no farther than Egypt to find the true source of Rome's form of communion. There in ancient Egypt, we find the worship of their 'trinity' of Isis, Horus, and Set. According to a historian named Wilkinson, in his work, Egyptians, volume v, page 353, he states that "a thin, round cake occurs on all (Egyptian) altars." The round, waferlike disk was a symbol of the sun, and represented the Egyptian trinity in general, and their savior, Osiris, in particular. That wafer-god was believed to be the body and blood of Osiris by the Egyptian initiates! And Osiris was believed to be the divine son of Isis. This, dear surfer, is the source of Rome's wafer-god: a resurrection of ancient pagan worship and beliefs, in which only the names are changed to delude the gullible and innocent.

| Top of Page | What's on this Page | Comments | Table of Contents |

Official Roman Catholic Documentation

[Catechism of the Catholic Church][Q+A Catholic Catechism][Council of Trent][The Catholic Encyclopedia on Anathema/Excommunication ]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The following tables contain exact quotations from various official Roman Catholic catechisms and other documents that carry at the very least, a Nihil Obstat, and perhaps an Imprimatur as well (marks that indicate a document is free of doctrinal error and is therefore suitable for the Roman Catholic reader.
Rome on Communion-Catechism of the Catholic Church

The following quotations are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Copyright 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

1129 The (Roman Catholic) Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. (Council of Trent (1547) DS 1604)

1149 "The great religions of mankind witness, often impressively, to this cosmic and symbolic meaning of religious rites. The liturgy of the Church presupposes, integrates and sanctifies elements from creation and human culture, conferring on them the dignity of signs of grace, of the new creation in Jesus Christ." A tacit admission that Rome, finding no support in Scripture for her practices, must turn to 'the great religions of mankind' for justification.

1357 ". . . we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present."

1364 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."

1365 "The Eucharist is also a sacrifice. In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he 'poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Using Matthew 26:28 for support).

1375 "It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament."

1378 In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. 'The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.'" (Quoting Pope Paul VI, MF 56).

1293 The body of Christ we receive in holy communion is 'given up for us,' and the blood we drink 'shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins.' For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins."

1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of Christ."

| Top of Page | What's On This Page | Comments |

Rome on Communion-The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism

The following quotations are from The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism, Copyright 1981 by John A. Hardon, S.J.

QA1308 "The Eucharistic fast requires abstaining from eating and drinking, except water, for one hour before actual communion time."

QA1217 "The Eucharist is necessary for salvation."

QA1223 "Christ is present in the Eucharist not only with everything that makes him man, but with all that makes him this human being. He is therefore present with all his physical properties, hands and feet, and head and human heart. He is present with his human soul, with his thoughts, desires, and human affections."

QA1225 "After the consecration, nothing remains of the bread and wine except their external properties. Their substance becomes the living body and blood of Christ."

QA1230 "The Eucharist reveals God's power because it is a compendium of miracles: the change of substance of bread and of wine into the body and blood of Christ; the remaining appearances of bread and wine, after the bread and wine have ceased to exist; the presence of Christ, whole and entire and living under the sacred elements' the presence of the Trinity in the Eucharist as a result of the union of the two natures in Christ, and the union of the Son of God with the Father and the Holy Spirit; and the multiplication of his presence in every particle of the species."

QA1241 "The real presence is separately proved from Sacred Scripture in the narrative of the Last Supper, and in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John."

QA1249 "We should worship Jesus in the tabernacle because he is present there under the appearances of bread and wine."

| Top of Page | What's On This Page | Comments |
Council of Trent

It may come as a surprise to non-Catholics, but the Roman Catholic Church 'anathematizes,' curses, or damns to Hell, all who disagree with her teachings. If your conscience leads you to disagree with Rome, she, in effect, tells you 'Go to Hell!" Click here for proof that Rome's anathema and excommunication are a damnation to hell. Herewith a collection of these curses as they apply to one's belief in Holy Communion. Unless otherwise noted, these quotations are from session 13, October 11, 1551 of the Council of Trent.

Cannon I "If anyone denieth that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema (cursed, damned to hell)."

Cannon II, III, IV (Essentially a restatement of Cannon I, adding minute differences in details).

Cannon V If anyone saith either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema (cursed, damned to Hell).

Cannon VI If anyone saith that, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ. . . is not to be adored with the worship, even external, of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions. . . or is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored and that the adorers are idolaters; let him be anathema (cursed, damned to Hell).

Cannon VIII If anyone saith that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema (cursed, damned to Hell).

Cannon XI If anyone saith that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema (cursed, damned to Hell). . . . this holy synod ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, how contrite soever they may think themselves.

| Top of Page | What's On This Page | Comments |


Anathema Defined

Some Roman Catholic surfers have taken me to task for saying that Rome's curses, or anathemas, are, expressed in modern English, the same as saying "Let him/her/them go to hell!" These well meaning but ill-informed Catholics accuse me of twisting words, taking things out of context, misunderstanding and misrepresenting the Roman Catholic Church. They tell me their church would never condemn anyone to hell.

Alright. To avoid all confusion, to prove that there is no misunderstanding, no misrepresentation, no out-of-context citations, let's look at Rome's official definition of "anathema".
"Pope St. Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. Xxxix, ch. Lix, Si Quem). . . Declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.

In passing this sentence (of excommunication/anathema) the pontiff (pope) . .. pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: 'Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- (person or group's name) and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and all his angels and all the reprobate so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance, and satisfy the Church."*


* [The Catholic Encyclopedia, ANATHEMA]. To verify, surf over to http://www.sni.net/advent/cathen/01455e.htm the Catholic Encyclopedia site.
QUESTION: According to the infallible pronouncement of Pope St. Gregory IX, is there any significant difference between excommunication and an anathema? Yes No
QUESTION: When a pope excommunicates a person/group, does he say that "we judge him condemned to eternal fire...?" Yes No
QUESTION: Is "eternal fire with satan and all his angels..." a fair, accurate designation of the place also called hell? Yes Yes
QUESTION: Is it reasonable to say that "we judge him condemned to eternal fire" is equivalent to saying "let him go to hell?" Yes No
QUESTION: According to Rome's own definitions and writings, is it fair, reasonable and accurate to say that an anathema is a curse, a damnation to hell? Yes No

| Top of Page | What's On This Page | Comments | Table of Contents |


Comments? Questions?

Comments? Questions?Visit Our Message Board!Click this box to view or post your comments on our Message Board. See what others have to say! Enter your own comments about this site, or the information you find here. If your comments are of general interest, they may be included in an update to this site.


1. This is the earliest reference I have found thus far in my research into the writings of 'The Fathers of the Church." It is possible that earlier references exist. If you are aware of them, please use my message board to send the reference to me so I can amend this statement. Thank you!

2. On Biblical grounds, I refuse to call any man on earth 'father' save for my biological dad, who is entitled to this honor. God forbids it (Matthew 23:9). However, to ensure the accuracy of what I have at this site, I am constrained to use the term exactly as it appears in the documentation (books, internet sites, CDROM, and so forth). This is in no way an endorsement of the practice!