24 August, 2014

Discussion with someone who calls herself "Knowbible"

My commentary and response is in bold:

“If you had a problem; why didn't you go to God in prayer?”

What makes you think that I did not pray to God?

“Message: It seems strange when you had a problem with the Movarian; that you went to your colleagues instead of God himself.”

What gave you the idea that I did not not pray about the situation?

“ It seems through all this mess that Satan deceived this situation; yes it seems that you believe the Catholic Church is correct,”

Of course the Catholic Church is correct. The Bible does not lie when it calls the Church the “pillar and foundation of the truth”. Jesus said that His Church would endure for all times free from apostasy. He prayed that we have unity in the Catholic Church. Why would He pray for unity in His Church if the Church is not “correct”.

“but what if everything you was taught was untrue---not correct?”

What would I do? Are you suggesting that I go to God and tell Him that He lied about His Church? Are you saying that perhaps He prayed for unity so that we would all be deceived? As a Christian that is not a plausible conclusion to reach. How could Jesus’ words be untrue and anyone have faith in Him? I trust Jesus and His teaching and so should you.   

“How would you know if you didn't go to God in the first place to ask Him where His church is instead of assuming it's the RCC or ask God if your beliefs were true as show His truth to you?”

He told us where His Church is in the Bible and it is the Catholic Church. That is undeniable. It is true that the Church wrote the New Testament of the Bible and canonized the entirety of the Christian Canon under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Jesus said would lead us to all truth in His Church. Why would anyone not believe the words of Christ and the Bible. I am not assuming anything but following Jesus’ desire for unity and belief in His Word. I do not see how He could have revealed His will any better than what is recorded in Scripture. But yet there are people like you who doubt His teaching and follow false teacher instead that satisfy your itching ears for fables and false teaching. That is more difficult to understand than someone who is faithful to His own Church. Why would anyone trust a man-made counterfeit sect over the Church founded by Jesus and the apostles? That is the more difficult question to answer. To me it is more reasonable to do God’s will than to do the will of man. It is as if some reject Christ and His teaching and simply follow false teachers and their counterfeits to what Christ founded. Perhaps you can explain why a counterfeit, man made sect has seduced you into error?

“The RCC is a universal church and not a "little flock", in the future it is known the true saints will be killed in which the RCC calls "heretics" like as this was in the past.”

What? Are you trying to convince me that those who reject the will of Jesus are the “true saints”? You are speaking absolute nonsense now. Is this just wishful thinking to encourage and give credibility to your apostasy.


“I have showed how RCC took the 2nd commandment out and changed the 4th commandment to Sunday worship--”

No, you did not. What you did was make an allegation without any basis in fact.

“-You have admitted Catholics worship Sunday because Jesus was resurrected that day, but have also said that Catholics accept the Biblical Sabbath Saturday which I don't really believe they do.”

We worship everyday and at all times. The Eucharistic celebration is never ending until He comes again fulfilling the prophecy of Malachi 1:11. As you know , Jesus came to fulfill all prophecy as this is an example.

“ Yes the same commandments of Exodus is in Deuteronomy, but in the Catholic Catechism---the 2nd commandment is left out?”

No, the Church does not leave out any Commandment of God.

“OK to prove this theory, one question----What is the 4th commandment”

The Bible gives us at least three versions of the Decalogue. The two most similar are Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. The third version is very different which is Exodus 34:12-26. The latter version is the one which the Bible refers to as the The Commandments or Decalogue. The first set were destroyed by Moses and the second set are the ones in Exodus.

To make things a little more difficult is the fact that Jesus gave us three different versions of the Commandments found in the New Testament. They are found in  Matthew 19:18-19, Mark 10:19 and Luke 18:20. The it actually gets even more difficult when we realize that none of them were numbered or punctuated originally. So any attempt to number them with any veracity is an exercise in futility because we can never know the intent of the order based on Scripture. Suffice it to say that they are all God’s Commandments and must be honored as such regardless of any man made order we subscribe to them. The fact is that the original writers inspired by God chose not to number them.  

“I have proven the RCC false in many areas and have seen how they have twisted verses”

Really? So you think that the Bible is false teaching when it calls the Church the “pillar and foundation of the truth”? that destroys your credibility as a person with Bible knowledge with any authority to teach others. Which, by the way, according to the Bible the Church is the only teaching authority given by Christ.

“remember I was in Babylon Confusion twice, so I know how churches and people can brainwash to make you believe in something strongly, but in reality it's not that way even though they perceive it that way.”

Well, from where do you get any authority to come to such conclusions that contradict the teaching of Jesus. Your statements become suspect when you use terms like “Babylon” in a context that shows that you do not understand the biblical teaching about “Babylon”. Babylon universally in the Bible refers to Pagan Rome and not the Church. And, again the Bible calls the Church the “truth” which you deny to your own destruction. You forget that I am a Bible translator and you're claiming the Bible, when it disagrees with your man made doctrines is false, is not a convincing argument at all to me.

“(2) Re: Is people's perception flawed? (Prov.14:12)”

It can be but according to Scriptures the Bible is not for personal interpretation but instead it is the Church that is the foundation of truth of Scriptures. As you continue to demonstrate it is your perception that is quite flawed.

“RCC, why do you believe it's true when the scriptures say otherwise?

The Scriptures do not say otherwise but instead gives all teaching authority to the Church.

“RCC believes in Sunday Worship, Trinity, Birthdays, Immortal Soul, Secret Rapture, etc, but doesn't Protestants too?”

Yes, we believe in continuous worship at all times until Jesus comes again fulfilling the prophecy of Malachi. We believe in the Trinity as that is not only the teaching of Jesus and the Church but the Bible also. Yes, we do believe that people have birthdays that are recorded each year of their life. Certainly the biblical teaching is that the soul is immortal and we believe this. I do not know what you mean by a secret rapture but the Church does not teach the rapture. I guess not all Protestants believe the same as you are testimony to being the spawn of Protestantism in spirit and reality.

“Don't these Protestants follow these RCC teachings; would you consider them to be the daughters of the RCC?”

When their teachings and beliefs are the same a Christ’s Church then they are following truth but none but the Catholic Church have the fullness of truth and practice.

“ What about the majority following these doctrines; what does the Bible say about it?
Rev.17:5 = "And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth."
Matthew 7:13 = "Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby."

As I have revealed to you before “Babylon” in the Bible always refers to Pagan Rome and never to the Church. The “narrow gate” according to Scripture is the Church where all must pass to be saved. Non-Catholic Christians are are the ones following the broad way to destruction according to Scripture.

“Perception Flawed?
People say once you die, you go to heaven------OK where is this in the Bible?
For instance: I can prove this wrong in many ways with scriptures from the Bible.”

(2 Cor 5:8) Yes, for those who are in Christ.

“Jesus plainly states in John 3:13, "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of man who is in heaven." Yet, most of the Christian world believes that immediately upon death a person's soul goes off to heaven.”

Yes, Jesus through His sacrifice atoned for humanities original sin of the Garden of Eden and opened the gates of heaven for all who are in Christ. Upon our death Christ followers who die in a state of Grace are immediately in God’s presence in Heaven. There is no such thing as the nonsense of soul sleep or other  unbiblical musings of the fate of the soul in Christ.


“David was a man of God's own heart, but didn't Peter say in Acts 2:29,34 = ". . . he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. . . . For David did not ascend into the heavens . . ."

His body did not ascend to heaven for only the soul resides in heaven and not a physical body.

“(3)What happens when one dies? (Bible Answer)
Message: "For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. . . . Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going." (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)”

My expertise is the Old Testament. Surely it was the prevailing view of those of this time thinking that the dead are no longer capable of thinking, acting or having joy of any kind (9:6, 10) and that they are quickly forgotten by those still living (2:16). Essentially the state of death is almost no existence at all. Qoheleth is sharing the common belief of his time or is speculating about death. He reveals to us the limits of reason but not the actual circumstances in regards to the departed souls. It is through revelation to the Church that we learn the fullness of truth about our eternal destination whether the particular or the universal judgments, the resurrection of the body, heaven and hell respectively.

“Jesus Christ made it plain that Death was called a "sleep". Isn't that why people put on the grave plaques "Rest in Peace"?”

The body sleeps but the soul is eternally alive in one of two eternal destinations. The soul is alive in heaven or in hell.

"These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead." (John 11:11-14)”

Jesus used a euphemism for biological death. Jesus made it clear that he would not awaken from death on his own. Indeed He was raised from the dead by Jesus.

“Matthew 9:24 = "he said, Give place: for the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn."”

Jesus raised her from death as well.
“What is a "soul"? {One's mind/consciousness is made up in a person.}

Gen.2:7 (KJV) = "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." @{Also can see ASV version and Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) which says "living soul".}”

The “soul“ is the eternal part of our being that goes to heaven or to hell for eternity.

“Gen.2:7 in NIV says "living being"

@Equation Form
Body + Breath = Living Soul
Body + Spirit = Living Soul”

This is what we call imagery...it gives us the image of a potter shaping a vessel out of clay (Job 10:9,Isa 45:9). Let us look at the wordplay in Hebrew here... “man” ( ‘adam) and the ground ( ‘adamah) from which he is made (Sir 33:10). The creation of man out of dirt or clay is an ancient motif paralleled in Egyptian (Great Hymn to Khnum) and Mesopotamian literature ( Atrahasis Epic:Gilgamesh Epic.

(Dust) is the symbol of human mortality ( Gen 3:19)

(breath of life) This represents the principal of animation making man a living creature like the animals.(2:19,7:21-22). man is created unique in that we are both matter and spirit. We posses not only a body but a rational soul (Wis 15:11). We find these same parallels in Egyptian texts ( Instruction for King Merikare; Great hymn of Aton).

Adam was not just created with natural, biological life but was also infused with supernatural life of grace nd of holiness. Accordingly, from his first breath, Adam was “upright” (Ecc. 7:29) “son of God” (Luk 3:38).

(5) What are the 3 heavens mentioned in the Bible?
Message: 1st heaven: firmament or expanse of heaven where the birds fly and where the clouds give rain.
Genesis 1:26, Gen.2:20, Gen.8:2, 1Kings 18:45”

Gen.2:20 Lexham English Bible (LEB) = "And the man[a] gave names[b] to every domesticated animal and to the birds of heaven[c] and to all the wild animals.[d] But for the man there was not found a helper as his counterpart.[e]"

1Kings 18:45 (ESV) = "And in a little while the heavens grew black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode and went to Jezreel."

2nd Heaven refers to outer-space where the sun, moon and stars are found.
(Gen.22:17, Exodus 32:13, Joshua 10:13)

Gen.22:17 (KJV) = "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

3rd heaven is called God's abode that often designated as the "heaven of heavens" = Joshua 2:11, Psalm 11:4, 2Cor.12:2 equated with verse 4 "paradise".

The Bible is not calling all three of these heaven. The first two illustrate God’s creation for man. The third is from everlasting to everlasting as is God.

Many religions won't stop here to be satisfied with the Bible's answer that Elijah didn't go to heaven, so they site Mark 9:2-10 to insist that Elijah went to heaven. Let's take this story to another part of the Bible in Matthew 17:1-9. Doesn't it say in Matthew 17:9 that the transfiguration was a vision? Matthew 17:9 = "And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead." Now what was this vision about? It's actually really simple! Moses represents the one's that have been dead and are in the grave while Elijah represents the one's that are alive at Jesus's coming; the one's in the grave sleeping will rise first at Christ's coming and the one's that are alive will be significally changed (1Thessalonians 4:13-18, 1Corinthians 15:51-54).

It seems that I proved without a doubt that Elijah was placed somewhere on the earth as I proved that the transfiguration was a vision. It seems there is no evidence of Elijah going to heaven; this is just man's carnal teachings that are not found in the Bible!!!!

(6) Elijah---did he go to heaven?
Message: 1Kings 18:45 says wind is in the sky (1st heaven).

@Was Elijah taken up by a whirlwind in 2Kings 2:11?

Now I ask you which heaven would this be? Wind would only lift him into the atmosphere--the 1st heaven. Did Elijah's disciples think he had been taken to the heaven of God or did they want to try to look for him somewhere on the earth as stated in 2Kings 2:16? As getting further into the story; it acknowledges this event took place when Jehoshaphat was 53 years old when Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat's reign (See: 2Chronicles 20:31 & 2Kings 3:1; Caculate 35 +18; it reveals that Jehoshaphat was 53 years old at that time).

Then in 2Chronicles 21:1; it is noted Jehoshaphat died and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead. {*Note: Don't get the two Jehorams mixed up; one was the son of Ahab while the other is Jehoshaphat's son.} Now look at this in 2Chronicles 21:12 = "And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the Lord God of David thy father, Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah."

Re: What is spirit?
Message: According to Bible: do we have mortal souls "subject to death"? Doesn't
Christ has to raise dead bodies when He comes back to earth?
1Cor.15:51-57 & 1Thess.4:13-17

What is "Spirit"? @Spirit = breath.

Eccl.12:7 (KJV) = "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

Eccl.12:7 Lexham English Bible (LEB) = "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the breath returns to God who gave it."

Psalm 146:3-4 says: "Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help. His spirit departs, he returns to his earth; in that very day his plans [thoughts, KJV] perish."
********
All throughout this I have been citing scriptures, but you keep saying I have man's teachings; how could that be when RCC's & Protestants have men's teachings---I will prove it further.

About Elijah---don't Catholics & Protestants say He went to heaven???

OK, how did their perception make them think this way? Does the Bible really say this or does it say he was placed on the earth somewhere else.
Before we go into this story: we need to know certain things such as the story of the 3 heavens mentioned in the Bible

2Samuel 18:9 = "And Absalom met the servants of David. And Absalom rode upon a mule, and the mule went under the thick boughs of a great oak, and his head caught hold of the oak, and he was taken up between the heaven and the earth; and the mule that was under him went away."

I am not a theologian so my personal opinion would have very little authority. Here is a link to a writing by Father William Saunders that explains this is great detail:


God bless!

In Christ

Fr. Joseph

21 April, 2014

Eli Soriano attacking the veracity of the Catholic Mass

[ Eli Soriano is the founder of the Arian sect called the Church of God International that is primarily located in the Philippines. It is a schismatic sect of the Jehovah Witnesses and has similar teachings adopting the same evil heresies. The words of Eli Soriano are in italics and my response is in bold. ]

“To be ignorant may be pardonable because it is not being hopeless, but to delude oneself is another.”
Indeed!
“After claiming that the wine in the cup of the Catholic priest is the real blood of the Lord Jesus by the process of transubstantiation, here comes Catholic apologetics saying that their mass is an unbloody manner of sacrificing Jesus Christ – something they do-again and again.”
First of all this is not the claim of Catholic apologists but the teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus.
Catholics see the Scriptures written about the Eucharist as literal teaching by Jesus and have interpreted Jesus’ words as literal since before the NT Scriptures were written as recorded in Scripture. Catholics find no reason to interpret Jesus’ teaching to be anything but literal from a hermeneutical, historical or theological perspective.
Some Protestants, on the other hand, are very much like the proto-Protestants who were former disciples and left Jesus after His teaching in John 6, about the commandment to eat His Body and drink His Blood. They remain in the carnal sense and deny the miracle of the Eucharist. They believe that instead of being present at the one sacrifice of Christ, that what Jesus instituted is a symbolic ordinance instead.
So, what we are speaking of is two totally different practices. The first identical to what the apostles taught and put into practice which is the real presence and the second a modernist interpretation of a man Ulrich Zwingli which is a symbolic ordinance. The first is actually Christ on the Cross where the worshippers are at the foot of the cross; the second is just a remembering of what Christ did as recorded in the Bible. When a Catholic Christian remembers Christ’s sacrifice it is from being there, when a Protestant remembers Christ’s sacrifice it is recalling what is written in Scriptures about the event. Certainly, one should be able to understand the level of passion one would have after being at the foot of the cross compared to the level of one just remembering what is written in a book. So even though some do not take it lightly, even though they do not believe, it cannot be the same passion for an exercise or ordinance in supposed obedience, as the Protestant act can be described; to the Catholic practice of being present with the living corporeal Christ at the cross and eating His real body and Blood as He commanded.
It must be noted for understanding that for many of the Reformers that this approach by Zwingli was necessary to give some credibility to the new Protestant movement which denied the successive apostolic leadership of the Church established by Christ. These reformers knew full well that they had no true legitimacy and no authority from Christ. They also knew that without a legitimate episcopacy that they could not continue Holy Orders, the Sacraments nor do they have the authority to confect the Eucharist which authority can only be given by Christ through the Church. Therefore, they could not continue the Eucharist even if they desired without a valid priesthood.
(Mat 15:7 DRB) Hypocrites, well hath Isaiah prophesied of you, saying:(Mat 15:8 DRB) This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.(Mat 15:9 DRB) And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.
(Mar 7:5 DRB) And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands?
(Mar 7:6 DRB) But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
(Mar 7:7 DRB) And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.
(Mar 7:8 DRB) For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.(Mar 7:9 DRB) And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.
(Luk 6:46 DRB) And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?
Of course it is not Church traditions that is the only reason to believe in the truly, real and substantial Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord as it is the teaching directly from our Lord and from the original disciples of our Lord maintained as the deposit of truth from the very beginning of the Church founded at Pentecost. The Church has been in total agreement with this teaching and did not receive substantial disagreement until Ulrich Zwingli in the 16th century argued for a real absence of Christ in the Eucharist and sought to change it from a Sacrament introduced by our Lord to a mere exercise or as some call it an ordinance. The other rebellious Protestants were reluctant to accept Zwingli’s teaching but eventually it prevailed among the majority of Protestants because of the obvious problem the new syncretic blend of Secular Humanism and Christianity and that   there was no valid clergy or teaching authority in the new Protestant movement. They had to find new man-made heretical doctrines to be a bulwark against the fullness of truth contained in the Catholic Church and adopted the heresies of the Solas, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and Sola Christi. Such a departure from orthodoxy made it possible and necessary to reject the foundational and fundamental teaching of the Church, which is the miracle of anamnesis, and deny the truly real and substantial Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord from their worship replacing it with an exposition of Scripture and allegorical interpretation of God’s Word instead. Instead of worshiping the corporeal Christ they worshiped mans opinion of God’s Word exposed by men without any God given authority to teach. It is not surprising that there are exponentially increasing heresies to match the exponentially increasing schisms within their body. Essentially it is a movement of division within the Corpus Christi which by these fruits it is fair to assume that this is not from God but from the author of confusion and lies. So, actually the reason that you do not accept “anamnesis “ is at least to some substantial degree because of Protestant traditions taught by Ulrich Zwingli and his followers in their protest of the teaching of Christ and the disciples in an effort to give some credibility to their new desperate syncretic movement.
In Koine Greek the literal meaning of “anamnesis” is the “loss of forgetfulness” and comes from Platonian philosophy. It does not mean to recall a past event in one’s life as does the word “remembrance” (Luke 22:19). Certainly for that to be the meaning one would no longer be able to remember after a generation or two remembrances would be impossible. That is why Jesus said to the disciples that His teaching in John 6 could not be discerned with the carnal senses which would pass away with time but that this teaching was eternal and must be discerned with the knowledge from the Spirit instead for perpetuity or at least until Jesus returns again to judge mankind and unite our soul with our glorified bodies. Some Protestant exegetes are forced to understand Jesus’ teaching at the Synod in Capernaum in a very strained, twisted and awkward way saying that Jesus said the flesh will profit nothing suggesting that He really was not teaching that what we understand that we are to eat and to drink is not His truly real and substantial Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Such is an utterly an absurd interpretation following Jesus saying that one must eat His Body and drink His Blood to have eternal life.
How can anyone with intellect and reason conclude that Jesus had just do anything else but contradict the teaching that He had labored so succinctly to explain to the point that those who were His disciples but the twelve left Him never to follow Him again. He convinced them of the literalness of His words but they could not imagine by knowing that what Jesus was commanding of the faithful was to separate themselves or be cut off from the familial relationship of the Old Covenant under the Mosaic laws that forbid the drinking of blood.
Their leaving proves that they understood Jesus literally as did the 12 disciples. Jesus admitted to the twelve that this was hard teaching as they were aware of the teaching of Moses as well. Jesus did not go into another explanation saying that He was speaking allegorically but instead did not deny the literalness of His teaching even to the twelve. Instead He told them that this understanding would come from their spiritual senses rather than the carnal which is the true and only logical meaning of the flesh profits nothing. Surely it does profit if it must be eaten for eternal life as is the only logical understanding. Jesus said to the twelve that remained, Do you wish to leave also and St. Peter answered, “Where else shall we go as you have the words of eternal life”. Their spiritual senses or “anamnesis” that they drew upon kept them from leaving. What Jesus taught would be clearly and fully understood from the cross in due time when the disciples would truly experience a “loss of forgetfulness”. For truly the twelve had a prepared conscience from eternity for them to draw upon that was not unlike the law that God circumcised on everyone’s heart.
As Plato described “anamnesis” it is a prepared spiritual knowledge just as Jesus called the listeners at Capernaum to draw upon which is an intuitive knowledge that in Christian theological understanding means that it is knowledge placed in the human conscience (as defined by Pope Benedict XVI in “On Conscience: Two Essays by Cardinal Ratzinger. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007”) before becoming the Pope who said that the central anthropological and ontological meaning of conscience is anamnesis) that we can draw upon for understanding the miracles of God and thus accepting them even without reason or intellectual affirmation. Plato lacked the fullness of understanding in that he erroneously believed in reincarnation as the source of this knowledge instead of God being the source through imputation. Plato was correct in believing that the soul is immortal.
If it was not for this prepared conscience man could not even believe in God as the Holy Spirit bringing one to faith would have nothing to appeal to for this faith. Faith does not come from intellect or reason although faith is not devoid of these faculties but from a prepared conscience that can respond to the Spirit of God.
The miracle of anamnesis is that we can call on the knowledge that has been placed in our eternal soul by God. As Jesus said in John 6 the flesh profits nothing but the Spirit reveals all. Through God’s miracle of anamnesis the Mass is not a re-sacrifice of our Lord as you claim but instead we are present as the whole Church, Militant, Suffering and Triumphant in the one sacrifice for all to offer with Christ the one sacrifice to the Father from the Cross.

“First off, history records that Catholics had arguments as to what transubstantiation would mean in their ritual of the Eucharist: whether wine becomes blood and the bread, the body of Christ, but the appearance of the substance of wine and bread are still the same; or whether wine really becomes the blood of Christ, and the bread his body. In the first, the change is in the meaning as thought so in the mid-twentieth century; in the second, it is literal.  Pope Paul VI was saying so in 1965 with finality: it is the literal body and blood of Christ. And now, they find comfort that transubstantiation has plunged back to emphasizing that wine is still wine in appearance, bread is still bread in appearance, but those are equally still the body and blood of Christ. It now has a different name: Real Presence (Source: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: transubstantiation).
Still and all, even to the uninformed, that is double-speak of the highest degree and thriving in  appearance of the delusion, just so to continue in a practice not commanded in the Bible.”
Certainly the Eucharist is food for the believer if one is to believe Jesus’ in His colloquy at Capernaum. It is food for endurance till eternal life. It provides the grace necessary to complete the race. Jesus compares it to the manna that was eaten in the desert to sustain the Israelites. But Jesus is speaking of the New Covenant requiring a new sustenance which is His Body and Blood. In making this comparison He says that real bread comes from the father just as He and then says that He is the bread of life. If one eats this bread they will live forever. The disciples listening to Him began to realize that Jesus was not speaking metaphorically but literally and then we come to the following verse:
(Joh 6:52 DRB) (6:53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat
Then Jesus said in unambiguous literal language:
(Joh 6:53 DRB) (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
The following verse indicates the purpose of eating His body and drinking His blood. It is so that we can “abidete” or in other words remains in Him by the Grace bestowed by the act of receiving His Body and His Blood. But the Eucharist benefits us even more in that it augments our union with Christ as the principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist is an intimate union with Christ.
(Joh 6:56 DRB) (6:57) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
An additional benefit of the Eucharist is that it is impossible to unite to Christ without the cleansing of past sins and preserving us from future sins through His grace. This is part of the sanctification process where we grow in our faith in him which separates us further from the risk of mortal sin. Additionally, the Eucharist participation renews, strengthens and deepens ones incorporation into the Church which is achieved through Baptism. It joins us to the entire Church Militant, Suffering and Triumphant.
This is what St. Ignatius said about the Eucharist at the end of the first century, “ the one bread that provides the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes live forever in Jesus Christ.”
One may ask the question does God’s spiritual work always require a physical channel. “Always” is a very dangerous position to take when speaking of God as God can as our sovereign creator do things however he wishes. So this is really not a matter of “always” but instead, did God use the physical channel of Jesus transforming simple bread and wine into His body and Blood to bestow the Grace of eternal life.
I was reading another apologist’s commentary some time ago and He related how some Protestants get an almost Docetist view when it comes to the Eucharist. They have no problem believing something to be spiritual but when it comes to mixing spirit and matter they seem to experience intellectual and theological mind block. This is the usual excuse for not believing in Sacraments because a spiritual reality is being conveyed by means of matter. They may even believe that this is a violation of the divine plan. Matter instead of being used is to be avoided which would explain why some have difficulties understanding the incarnation. Many believe that it would be much easier if God did not dirty himself with matter. The Eucharist proves that God loves matter because He comes to us under the appearance of bread and wine. In doing so there is in contradiction in Christ being physically and Sacramentally present.
One may question how can Christ be present in the Eucharist and be also in heaven and that is a fair question. First of all, in my explanation let me make it clear that how Christ performs this miracle is a great mystery that we accept on faith through our spirit to His. If we look at the account of the last supper we see Jesus present in two ways. He is present at the table in a natural way and is present also in a sacramental way which is no different than the Eucharistic experience today and through the history of the Church. How this is done while being a mystery is not impossibility just because it cannot be understood fully with our reason. We can all accept as Christians that God is everywhere and that He is present in a spiritual sense when we are gathered together. This is no greater a mystery than him reigning in heaven in His glorified body and on earth in His natural body. If he can create the universe from nothing can he not make bread and wine into His Body and Blood? These things may be beyond our understanding but certainly not beyond God’s abilities.
For those who do not believe in the real presence there are the difficulties of the following verses:
(1Co 11:26 DRB) For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
(1Co 11:27 DRB) Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
(1Co 11:28 DRB) But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
(1Co 11:29 DRB) For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
(1Co 11:30 DRB) Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.
People who refuse to believe in the real presence believe that this represents a metaphor. But, if it is a mere metaphor, how can one be “guilty of the body and Blood” when one receives unworthily? As one scholar put it “Plain and simple reason seem to tell us that the presence of Christ’s body is necessary for an offense committed against it.” (Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman, Lectures on the Real Presence) It would seem reasonable that one cannot be guilty of Christ’s body and Blood if it is not present in the Sacrament. Other scholars said ” No one is guilty of homicide if he merely does damage to the statue or picture of a man without touching the man in person.” (Rumble and Carty, Eucharist Quizzes to a Street Preacher) The question might be asked in light of St. Paul’s teaching, can one be theologically satisfied in the meaningless belief in a Real Absence than the fuller meaning of a Real Presence.
Here is the defense:
“There can be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself unless we suppose that the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist.” (Source: Online Catholic Encyclopedia.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm).
If what is in the cup is the real blood of Jesus, how can the mass be an unbloody sacrifice?
With God all things are possible. We simply trust in Him rather than the criticisms of men devoid of His divine grace. We trust the messenger Jesus rather than those who through their carnal senses try to understand those things that are discerned in the Spirit. We trust the teacher Jesus and not men.
If what is in the cup is only symbolic blood, it is also symbolically bloody, doesn’t it follow?
Of course not as you remain in the carnal sense which Jesus said would prohibit understanding that comes from the spiritual senses. You are like the proto-Protestants who left Jesus in Capernaum never to follow Him again.
Someone criticizing me said that I misappropriated the prophecy in Malachi 1:11 for me after which she claims that it is rightfully for the Catholic Church, for they are the only group that has the incense mentioned in the prophecy.  Let us read,
MALACHI 1:11 (KJV)
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
I dare say, this verse does not apply to the Catholic Church for the simple reason that they do not understand the verse!  The incense mentioned in the prophecy is not the literal incense that Catholic priests burn at their altars! Notice what is said in this verse.
REVELATION 5:8 (RSV)
And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;
How can literal incense reach God’s throne when it cannot even penetrate into the atmosphere?  That they in the Catholic Church do not know the meaning of the verse they are appropriating for themselves is certainly misappropriation!
Again, like those that left Jesus at Capernaum you remain in the carnal sense and do not trust the messenger Jesus who said that only in the spiritual sense can we understand the things of God. Jesus illustrated that those in Capernaum remained in the carnal sense instead of the spiritual and as a result did not discern the truth of Christ’s words. Trust the messenger Jesus
“The sacrifice that Christians should always offer is not the Lord Jesus Christ for when He offered Himself in Calvary He made an offering “once for all and once forever.” The Bible says so.
HEBREWS 10:12 (KJV)
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God;”
That is correct and it is precisely what the Jesus and the Church teaches.
“And what is that sacrifice that Christians should offer to God? Take note that it is not something outside of the one doing the sacrifice.
HEBREWS 13:15 (KJV)
By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.”
This is precisely what the Church practices fulfilling the prophecy of Malichi.
“Prayers and praises are the sacrifice that we should offer again and again to God, “that is the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name, and not the mass of the misled Catholics.  It jives with the prophecy in Malachi that says, “My name shall be great among the Gentiles.””
As I said before, the Church teaches one sacrifice for all and NOT a sacrifice offered “again and again” as you claim. It is instead a representation of the one sacrifice for all through Christ’s miracle of anamnesis.
“Praying and praising His name is symbolic of the incense which is pure sacrifice that will reach the throne of the Almighty!  It is not something material, for then, not everyone would have access to it. It is not something readily found in those who prefer to delude themselves by way of ascribing spiritual presence to bread and wine that they call Christ’s body and blood – which they offer again and again.”
You clearly lack the understanding of Scriptures in regards to the Mass which appears to intentional out of prejudice for your doctrines of men. I find that your eisegetical approach to Scriptures in this teaching on the Eucharist is not based on any true, plausible, or scholarly biblical understanding. You seem to be unable to escape your carnal understanding of Christ’s own teaching that He taught could only be understood in the spiritual senses of an individual. He warned in John 6 not to rely on the carnal senses as did the proto Protestants that left Him  in Capernaum. Those , the disciples, remained with Him because they were willing and able to discern His teaching in the spiritual sense it was intended.
“And mind you, the greatness of His name will be known from the east to the west, not otherwise!
The Catholic Church started its mission of misleading people from the west! Beginning with their rituals, they really do mislead a lot.”
You truly missed in being able to prosecute your eisegetical belief that Jesus was speaking symbolically even though He said that He was speaking literal truth in John 6:64. You make a claim of the Church founded by Christ personally is misleading people but yet you could not support such a case in your commentary with anything but uninspired carnal beliefs devoid of spiritual discernment. God bless!


In Christ

Fr. Joseph