IS JESUS TRULY IN THE EUCHARISTIC HOST?
IS WORSHIPING THE EUCHARISTIC HOST BIBLICAL?
Is Jesus truly in the Eucharistic host? Is Jesus in the HOST at communion? In Jesus is the Eucharist? What I mean by this is the real presence of Jesus, body, soul, and divine spirit in the Eucharistic Host when the Catholic priest consecrate the round wafer of bread called the HOST? And is worshiping the Eucharistic HOST BIBLICAL?
First if all we must be on the same page, so to speak, in order to answer this question. What I mean by this is that while the English word “EUCHARIST” is NOT found the Bible the meaning or the practice of the word “Eucharist” is indeed found in the Bible.
You see the word “Eucharist” comes from the Greek word “EUCHARISTEO”, which means to THANK, to give thanks, to render GRATITUDE. It is used 37 times in the New Testament and is always translated as thank, give thanks, giving thanks or some form of being thankful or having gratitude.
At the last supper when Jesus lifted the BREAD up to his Father he “EUCHARISTEO” the bread, which means that Jesus gave THANKS for the bread before he BROKE the bread and gave it to his disciples as a symbol of his body that was BROKEN for the healing of our physical bodies. Please read the study “IS THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION BIBLICAL?” for a sound Biblical teaching that the elements of bread and wine do not actually change into the literal body and blood of Jesus. But for now please read Luke 22:17-20.
20. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”
So the New Testament Christian understood that partaking of communion was about the GIVING of THANKS to god for what Jesus did for us. The first through the fourth century Christian understood this truth as well. And even smaller groups of Christ all through the history of the church to this very day understand that the Eucharist MEANS the giving of THANKS.
The Bible ALSO teaches us that we are to take communion as a REMEMBRANCE of our Lord's suffering and death and we do this with a heart of THANKSGIVING or with a heart of GRATITUDE.
This is the original meaning of the “Eucharist” in the early church.
But not every Christian today understands this truth. You see these early believers were NOT referring specifically to the “BREAD” as the Eucharist, nor were the early Christians referring to the cup of wine specifically as the Eucharist as the Roman Catholic church does today, but rather the early Christians were speaking of the GIVING OF THANKS in REMEMBRANCE for the suffering and death of our Lord as being the Eucharist. But even more so they rejoiced in his victorious resurrection, for had Jesus not risen from the dead then his suffering and death would have been in vain.
What I mean by this is that the word “EUCHARIST” today in the Roman Catholic church or in the minds of most Catholics is the “HOST” or the “wafer of bread” that they believe is literally changed in substance to the literal FLESH of Jesus. Again please read the study “Is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation BIBLICAL?” for a sound Biblical teaching exposing the errors of this man made Roman Catholic doctrine as NOT being a sound Biblical teaching. The disciples of Jesus did not teach this doctrine of a literal change in the loaf of bread actually becoming the flesh of Jesus. This teaching is just an incorrect INTERPRETATION of the word of God by taking certain verse OUT of their context. All this is made clear in the study that I just mentioned, but for now let us stay focused on the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist as being the HOST.
So then, the focus of this study is more directed to the origin of the adoration of the “HOST” or the “WAFER of bread” that is called the “Eucharist” by the Roman Catholic church more so that being focused on the communion of giving THANKS for the suffering and death of our Lord as we take these elements of bread and wine in REMEMBRANCE of our Lord's suffering and death giving “Eucharisteo”, which means THANKSGIVING.
Also the “Eucharist” in the Roman Catholic church is part of the sacrifice of the mass. Hence the mass is sometimes referred to as the celebration of the “Eucharist” in the minds of many Catholics. This is another study which will be covered under the study called “THE ORIGIN OF THE CATHOLIC MASS”.
So then, now that we are on the same page, so to speak, the questions now become WHEN did the “HOST” called the Eucharist first come to be adored and venerated in the Catholic church. And from WHERE did this practice come of adoring a round disc shaped WAFER of bread called the HOST or the Eucharist?
Let us begin this study by addressing the first question as to WHEN the breaking of the LOAF of bread in the Christian church became the breaking of the “HOST” or “the thin compressed round disc shaped WAFER of bread” in the Catholic church. In other words, WHEN did the LOAF of bread used by the early Christians CHANGE and to become a compressed round disc shaped WAFER of bread called the “HOST” or the “EUCHARIST” in the Catholic church?
The Latin word “HOSTIA” means sacrifice. The Latin word “hostia”comes from the Latin word “hostis” which has a variety of meanings from victim to enemy, where we get the word hostile. But this Latin word “hostis” also means guest or HOST. The English word “host” means one who entertains in a hospitable way either a stranger or a guest in their home. So this is where the Catholic term “HOST”comes from to symbolize the literal PRESENCE of Jesus is the round wafer of bread as the “victim”or the slain Lamb of God. Thus the sacrifice of the mass or the sacrifice of the Eucharist, the HOST or the quest who has come to visit us with his very presence in the WAFER of bread, that is to say, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
But WHY? Why the change from a loaf of bread to this round disc shaped wafer of bread now called the HOST? When did this change come and why, and also from where did it originate? When did the ADORATION of the HOST or the veneration and worship of the “Eucharist”, the WAFER of bread, begin in the Catholic church? What does adoration and worship of the HOST mean to Catholics? What is the OFFICIAL teaching o fthe Roman Catholic church? The following is taken from a Catholic website:
waits for us in this Sacrament of Love
What is Eucharistic Adoration?
Understood simply, Eucharistic Adoration is adoring or honouring the Eucharistic Presence of Christ. In a deeper sense, it involves "the contemplation of the Mystery of Christ truly present before us".
During Eucharistic Adoration, we "watch and wait", we remain "silent" in His Presence and open ourselves to His Graces which flow from the Eucharist ... By worshiping the Eucharistic Jesus, we become what God wants us to be! Like a magnet, The Lord draws us to Himself and gently transforms us.
In its fullest essence ... Eucharistic Adoration is "God and Man reaching out for each other, at the same time!"
The Eucharist IS: Jesus truly present - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity!
At the moment of Consecration, during the Mass, the "gifts" of bread and wine are transformed (transubstantiated) into the actual Body and Blood of Christ, at the Altar. This means that they are not only spiritually transformed, but rather are actually (substantially) transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The elements retain the appearance of bread and wine, but are indeed the actual Body and Blood of Christ. This is what is meant by Real Presence: the actual, PYSICAL presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
Christ instituted this Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist in order to remain with mankind until the end of time (Jn. 14:18).
The (reserved) Blessed Sacrament serves as a focal point of devotion.
Because, as Catholics, we believe that Christ is truly and substantially present in the Eucharist, the Blessed Sacrament is given the SAME adoration and devotion that is accorded to Christ.
At the beginning of the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, a priest or deacon removes the sacred HOST from the tabernacle and places it in the Monstrance on the Altar for adoration by the faithful. "Monstrance" is the vessel used in the Church to display the consecrated Eucharistic Host, during Eucharistic adoration or benediction. The word MONSTRANCE comes from the Latin word monstrare, meaning "to expose". It is known in Latin as an Ostensorium. When a consecrated host is placed in the monstrance, It is said to be a solemn exposition.
When the Monstrance contains the Sacred Host, the priest does not touch it with his bare hands, but instead, holds it with a humeral veil, a wide band of cloth that covers his shoulders (humera) and has pleats on the inside in which he places his hands.
At all other times, the reserved Sacrament is kept locked in the Tabernacle, so that the faithful may pray in the presence of the Sacrament.
"Perpetual Adoration" is Eucharistic Adoration round the clock (that is, twenty-four hours a day). A "Holy Hour" is "Eucharistic Adoration of Reparation" which lasts for about an hour.
Adoration ceremonies traditionally include Scripture readings, hymns, prayers and time for silent adoration.
This catholic website goes on to say:
A Vision for Visions...
Let us take a CLOSER look at the sacred vessel, the MONSTRANCE, that houses the Body, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. The Monstrance draws all eyes to the Sacred Host that is seemingly surrounded by rays, like the SUN.
Similarly, we each are called to be a "Living Monstrance", radiating the presence of the Lord Who dwells in us.
The Monstrance is surmounted by a Cross ... what does this tell us?
Let us look at Jesus IN the MONSTRANCE, Who humbles Himself to come before us as a piece of bread. Let us reflect on our own life's situations that call us to humility. Are we humble, as God wants us to be, to bear our Crosses daily? Other virtues such as patience, temperance, self-control and piety will soon follow.
So then, if words mean anything at all, then the Roman Catholic church views this consecrated WAFER of bread called the HOST or the "Eucharist" as literally being JESUS in the form of a PIECE OF BREAD being in the HOUSE or in a SUN like IMAGE called the MONSTRANCE that Catholics WORSHIP with the SAME adoration devotion and veneration that is due Jesus himself.
However, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 clearly teaches us to come OUT and separate ourselves from those who worship IDOLS. The Holy Spirit of Almighty God dwells in US as believers. The same Holy Spirit that dwelt in Jesus now dwells in US. Jesus does NOT dwell in ANY man made Monstrance or Ostensorium that is made in the IMAGE of the SUN. Again please read the study “IS THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION BIBLICAL?” to learn what the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, teaches us as opposed to the TRADITION of the Roman Catholic church. But for now here is 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, which clearly teaches us that we as Christians cannot MIX the pagan practices of worship with our worship of God in Spirit and in truth.
15. And what concord has Christ with Belial? (speaking of false gods of devils) or what part has he that believes with an infidel?(speaking of PAGANS or the heathen, or the Gentiles, the way the world worships their gods)
16. And what agreement has the temple of God with IDOLS? FOR (of because YOU as a believer) YOU are the TEMPLE of the living God; as God has said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
The MONSTRANCE is nothing more that another pagan practice that has MIXED with Christianity to become the Roman Catholic church. In other words, the teachings of the Roman Catholic church are a MIXTURE of pagan ritual practices along with a little truth of God's word in order to deceive the people from following the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ. For you see my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, the worship of the “HOST” or the PIECE of BREAD in the Monstrance that is in the shape of a ROUND DISC or a round flat cake is taken straight from paganism SUN worship disguised under the name of the Roman Catholic church.
Isaiah 5:20,21 says WOE to those who call evil good.
Now the Catholic church will argue and say that they do NOT worship any IDOLS, but from the very words, of a Catholic website that I quoted from above plainly states that Catholics WORSHIP the “HOST”, called the "Eucharist" where Jesus supposedly comes to them in body, soul, and divine Spirit as a PIECE of BREAD. And at certain times this "Eucharist"of this so called consecrated HOST is place in a SUN IMAGE called a Monstrance to be WORSHIPED of ADORED and venerated with the SAME adoration or worship that is given to God in heaven.
During Eucharistic Adoration, we "watch and wait", we remain "silent" in His Presence and open ourselves to His Graces which flow from the Eucharist ... By WORSHIPING the EUCHARISTIC Jesus, we become what God wants us to be!...Let us take a CLOSER look at the sacred vessel, the MONSTRANCE, that HOUSES the Body, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. The Monstrance draws all eyes to the Sacred Host that is seemingly surrounded by rays, like the SUN....Let us look AT Jesus IN the MONSTRANCE, Who humbles Himself to come before us as a piece of bread.
God's word makes it blatantly clear that we as Christians are not to make or use ANY IMAGES in WORSHIP of Almighty God or his Son Jesus. Please prayerfully and carefully read Exodus 3:3-8, where God's people Israel worship an IMAGE that they made to REPRESENT the one true God in heaven.
In other words, in their minds they were not actually worshiping the idol that they just made, but rather they were worshiping the one true God in heaven who they knew brought them out of the land of Egypt. They knew that the idol they just made did not bring them out of Egypt, but yet Almighty God in heaven in HIS eyes they were worshiping and IDOL. In other words, Israel LOOKED at the IMAGE that they made to REPRESENT the one true God in heaven whom they were worshiping as they were LOOKING at the IMAGE. But in God's EYES they were IDOL worshipers even though their worship was to God on his feast day.
4. And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be your gods, O Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt.
5. And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, Tomorrow is a feast TO the LORD. (you see it the hearts and in the minds of the people of God they were worshiping the true God in heaven on his feast day that they were taught in the scriptures to worship on that day, but a few verses later in God's eyes he sees them as worshiping the IMAGE that they made so that they could SEE God. To THEM they were doing nothing wrong, but is God's EYES they were worshiping and IMAGE.)
8. They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshiped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be your gods, O Israel, which have brought you up out of the land of Egypt.(now again God's people knew right well that this IMAGE of God that they had just made did NOT free them from Egypt, because they were already set free BEFORE they ever made the IMAGE. The only reason that they made the IMAGE was so that they could SEE what they could not see. This kind of mindset is PAGAN and God does NOT want us to have IMAGES to see when we worship HIM. This is why God sent his Word to become flesh so that we could SEE his true NATURE though his Son Jesus. We do NOT need any other images of Almighty God other than the image in our MINDS of the true character of God displayed or revealed to us through the life and words of his Son Jesus.)”
The MONSTRANCE that holds the HOST where Jesus has supposedly come down to DWELL in this MONSTRANCE as a PIECE of BREAD is nothing more than an IDOL used in WORSHIP to the Son Of Almighty God and in the EYES of Almighty God, the Father, it is IDOL WORSHIP and it is a SIN.
In 1 Corinthians 19:14-21 we are taught to FLEE from idol worship, which is having ANY IMAGES used in worship. And this INCLUDES ANY IMAGES that are used in worship giving to either the one true and only Almighty God, the Father, or to his Son Jesus. Plain and simple NO IMAGES ever are to be used in worship of Almighty God the Father and his Son Jesus. And the Monstrance is an IMAGE of the SUN. And worship of IMAGES of the SUN is heathen pagan worship that is condemned by the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, the very word of Almighty God himself.
16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (or the SHARING) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion (or the SHARING) of the body of Christ? (this does NOT mean the sharing of the the ACTUAL flesh body and the LITERAL blood of Jesus, because that would be CANNIBALISM. But rather it means that we are partakers of the suffering and even the shedding of our own blood to die for the sake of Jesus. It also means that we are ALL part of the SAME body of Jesus Christ)
17. For (or BECAUSE) we being many are ONE BREAD (now we as believers do NOT literally become ONE GIANT LOAF of BREAD. These words are symbolic in their meaning), and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. (so just as Jesus was persecuted of broken for us we also shall be persecuted and broken for the sake of Jesus and his body of believers)
18. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar (meaning as Israel OBEYED the commands of God to EAT the Passover Lamb as a type and shadow of the TRUE LAMB so also we eat and drink of these elements of bread and wine that were offer THANKS for before God as SYMBOLS of our REMEMBRANCE of the suffering and death that Jesus his Son bore for us so that we could be reconciled back to God)?
19. What say I then? That the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? (in other words, the idol is nothing and the sacrifices offered in the presence of idols is worthless.)
20. But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and NOT to God: and I would NOT that you should have fellowship with devils. (or I would NOT that you MIX true worship in Spirit and in truth with that way that the Gentiles or the pagans worship the devils)
In other words, you cannot MIX the practices of pagan religions with Christianity, because then true worship to God then becomes the table of devils.
Now again Catholics try and argue that they are NOT worshiping IDOLS, but rather they are worshiping the EUCHARISTIC JESUS. Now IF SO BE that Catholics are worshiping the piece of BREAD as being the Eucharistic Jesus being in the form of a piece of BREAD, then WHY did the Catholic church CHANGE the traditional LOAF of bread that was used for centuries before from the very Apostolic times being given this institution of communion by Jesus himself using a LOAF of bread, but is now CHANGED into a ROUND shaped compressed DISC of bread and then changed the name of the bread to the HOST?
The answer is quite obvious. This CHANGE from the LOAF of bread to the round compressed disc shape wafer of bread called the HOST came to be, because PAGANISM was MIXED with Christianity that has now become the Roman Catholic church.
Please read the study “IS THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION BIBLICAL?” for a sound Biblical teaching that clearly shows that the elements of bread and wine are just SYMBOLS of the suffering of the body of Jesus being beaten or broken for our physical healing and the shed blood of Jesus dying on the cross for our sin. And goes on to show how we are to break the loaf of bread and share or partake of this element of bread as a symbol of REMEMBERING his broken body and then how we are to drink from the cup of wine which is the symbol of the shed blood of Jesus for our sins. This sharing of the ONE LOAF of bread also symbolizes that we ALL are of ONE body, the one true church f Jesus Christ or Lord and savior.
But for now let us continue this study on the Catholic “Eucharist” to see when this CHANGE of the loaf of bread at communion became the round disc shaped HOST wafer of bread came to be in the history of the Catholic church.
A Catholic bishop wrote:
SAINT BERNADINE OF SIENA 1380-1444…He is especially remembered for his zeal…and he popularized, with the help of St. John Capistrano, a symbol representing the Holy Name. The Gothic letters for the name of Jesus, “IHS,” were set in a blazing sun to whose tongues of fire and spreading rays he attributed mystical significance. For a time the Saint was denounced as a heretic and the symbol regarded as idolatrous…(Cruz JC. The Incorruptibles. Nihil Obstat Henry C. Bezon, November 11, 1974. Imprimatur +Philip M. Hannan, Archbishop of New Orleans, November 19, 1974. TAN Books 1977, p. 127)
But yet today this symbol of IHS that was at one time called IDOLATROUS is now accepted as common place as a symbol on the “HOST” or the “Eucharist” as if it has always existed in the Catholic church. This once IDOLATROUS symbol of IHS is now found all over in Catholic literature and yet the Catholic church herself cannot POSITIVELY say with absolute certainty as to WHERE the initials IHS came not what these initials IHS actually mean. But yet their own Catholic writers clearly state that this symbol of IHS was ONCE taught in the church to be IDOLATROUS and a HERESY to teach that this symbol of IHS had anything to do with Jesus or Almighty God the Father. This fact alone should raise an enormous red flag to any Catholic seeking the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God.
The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches in its article “Host”:
…the FIRST Christians…simply used the bread that served as food. It seems that the form differed but little from what it is in our day. The loaves discovered in an oven of a bakery at Pompeii weighed about a pound each. One of these, being perfectly preserved, measured about seven inches in diameter and was creased with seven ridges which facilitated the breaking of the LOAF without the aid of a knife. (Leclercq, Henri. “Host.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 28 Feb. 2011 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07489d.htm>)
Now since the FIRST Christians did indeed use a LOAF of bread rather than a round disc shaped “HOST”, then what did Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 19:20,21. where he said that we as Christians cannot be partakers of the Lord's table AND at the same time be partakers of the Devil's table?
“But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that you should have fellowship with devils.
21. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: you cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.”
Well according to the Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology the first Christian ALTARS or the FIRST communion TABLES were actually COFFINS in the catacombs, because the Christian church was being severely persecuted. What is meant by this is that as the ALTAR was gradually be developed this first form of the ALTAR were coffins upon which the early Christians broke bread and drank from the cup in remembrance of the suffering and death of Jesus. Before this time the early church broke the bread of communion from house to house and at times larger assemblies of believers meet in places like the upper room. You see there were no formal grand ornate church buildings built until the fourth century, which is another study in and of itself. Yes the early Christians did meet at times in larger buildings or rooms, but they where simply used as meeting places before the fourth century. And yes some of these building were actually own by these smaller groups as community own property, but again the real fancy ornate churches as SHRINE so to speak, were not built for Christians until the fourth century when Constantine built a place of worship for the Christians. More on this later in another study, but fro now let us get back to the study at hand.
Also history teaches us that the pagan Egyptians ate their sacrificial ceremonial meal on the lid of the coffin of their god Osiris, who was believed to rise from the dead and be PRESENT in the bread on the “table” or the lid of the coffin or the ALTAR. This practice was soon MIXED with Christianity when Christian shared the element of bread and wine on the lids of coffins in the catacombs where the secretly gathered to worship God to escape persecution.
Here is what a non Catholic writer named Alberto says:
Of course, average Catholics have no idea their beloved Eucharist is nothing more than an updated version of an ancient Babylonian occult practice. When this religion spread to Egypt, the Egyptians worshiped the SUN god, Osiris, and the priests claimed “to have magical powers which enabled [the priests] to CHANGE the great SUN God, Osiris, into a WAFER.” Because the Eucharist is based upon the ancient worship of the SUN, the HOST is made into the shape of a circle—the shape of the SUN…Alberto warns that Catholics are also unaware that the initials on their hosts, IHS, really stand for the Egyptian gods Isis, Hoeb, and Seb. This was the origin of the Catholic practice of the Eucharist, the central act of worship in Roman Catholicism. ..
As this religious system was forming, many Christians realized the real occult nature of the Catholic Church and rejected it. They fled into the hills and took the true copies of the Scriptures with them. When they were caught, they were given the choice to convert or be killed. This is the origin of such groups as the Waldneses and Anabaptists. (Gonzalez D. Steps of Grace. Dog Ear Publishing, 2010, p. 39)
So then, it now becomes a little clearer as to why the Catholic Bishop,
SAINT BERNADINE OF SIENA 1380-1444... who is ...especially remembered for his zeal…and he popularized, with the help of St. John Capistrano, a symbol representing the Holy Name. The Gothic letters for the name of Jesus, “IHS,” were set in a blazing sun to whose tongues of fire and spreading rays he attributed mystical significance. For a time the Saint was DENOUNCE as a heretic and the symbol IHS regarded as idolatrous
You see my dear brothers and sister in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, Christians back then UNDERSTOOD about these pagan ways of worship more so than most Christian today, because pagan worship was all around them and many of them were former pagans themselves. Now please keep in mind that the Egyptian SUN god was Osiris who these pagan Egyptians worship and believed that the priests could CHANGE the SUN god Osiris into a WAFER of bread, which would then be eaten as the FLESH of Osiris. And then when you combine this historical fact with the initials IHS that coincide with the Egyptian gods Isis, Hoeb, and Seb with the historical fact that a Catholic Bishop later used these same initials IHS as a SYMBOL for the name of Jesus, but was opposed for the IDOLATROUS act, then you have to wonder WHY these initials IHS still remain on the Roman Catholic “Eucharistic” round disc shaped compressed WAFER of bread called the “HOST” that is placed in a MONSTRANCE that is an IMAGE of the SUN.
Think this through for YOURSELVES my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, that is a lot of coincidences to deny that pagan practices of worship did NOT MIX with Christianity to become the Roman Catholic church of today.
The TRUTH of the matter is that the early church had many divisions within it even at it's very beginning. False teachings were on every side it seemed. First Judaism was falsely taught or MIXED with Christianity. Then Gnosticism MIXED with Christianity. Then paganism MIXED with Christianity. And this was all in the 1st century church. Please read the study “HOW THE CHURCH DIVIDED” that clearly shows from the Bible that division was in the church from the very beginning. This study also give the reader and the seeker of TRUTH the history of the church from BOTH sides. In other words, the side of the Roman Catholic history does NOT give you ALL the historical FACTS, because if they did, then they could no longer make the CLAIM that they ALONE are the ONE TRUE church and that NO one could be saved APART from the Roman Catholic church.
Now some Catholic writers try and argue that the Catholic church did not mix any pagan practices within the Catholic church, but other Catholic writers blatantly come straight out and say that the Catholic church does NOT DENY that many pagan practices were indeed MIXED with Christianity within the history of the Catholic church. Here is the official stand of the Roman Catholic church ITSELF that plainly states in the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism the following:
The missionary history of the [Catholic] Church clearly shows her ADAPTABILITY to all races, all continents, all nations. In her liturgy and her art, in her tradition and the forming of her doctrine, naturally enough she includes Jewish elements, but also elements that are of pagan origin. In certain respects, she has copied her organization from that of the Roman Empire, has preserved and made fruitful the philosophical intuitions of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, borrowed from both Barbarians and the Byzantine Roman Empire—but always remains herself, thoroughly digesting all elements drawn from external sources...In her laws, her ceremonies, her festivals and her devotions, she makes use of local customs after purifying them and "baptizing" them.
What was that again?
“The history of the Catholic Church clearly shows her ADAPTABILITY to all races, all continents, all nations. In her liturgy and her art, in her tradition and the forming of her doctrine, naturally enough she INCLUDES Jewish elements, but ALSO elements that are of PAGAN ORIGIN.
So then, CLEARLY seeing that the Catholic church itself openly admits that she has MIXED elements of pagan ORIGIN and the OLD Testament Jewish ceremonial priesthood elements into the forming of her doctrines, and then also MIXED the pagan practices of the priest having the power to CHANGE the bread on the table of Osiris into a round disc shaped WAFER of bread, then it should be very easy for you to see these origins of pagan practices within the Catholic church when you compare the pagan ceremonial rituals with the ceremonial worship system of the Roman Catholic church.
I mean WHY change the loaf of bread to a round disc shaped WAFER that in paganism was the symbol of the SUN if there was absolutely NO mixture of the Roman Catholic church with PAGANISM?
To me it is quite clear that paganism did indeed MIX with Christianity and this is WHY many Catholics or UNIVERSAL believers SPLIT from the ROMAN church. These believers that SPLIT from the Roman church could no longer tolerate these pagan practices so the broke away to form a group of unpolluted believers who did NOT mix paganism with Christianity so that they could reserve the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now the truth of the matter is that the Roman Catholic church itself cannot say for SURE exactly from where the initials IHS actually came. But the Catholic church suggests or offers as their opinion that IHS appeared in Catholicism no early than the fourth century. In other words, this symbol of IHS did NOT exist in the first and second century early church.
And then it is also admitted by the Catholic church that for centuries the church did not know the meaning of the abbreviation IHS after it did appear in some writings around the fourth century. The Catholic church goes on to state that this symbol of IHS did not become popular until many centuries later by the Catholic bishop Saint Bernadine of Siena between 1380 -1444 as being the one who popularized this symbol of IHS as the abbreviated name of Jesus, but was soon denounced as a heretic promoting idolatry.
Now this very vague historical evidence does not prove without a doubt that IHS symbol did or did not come from Egypt. However the lack of knowing exactly from where this symbol of IHS came by the Catholic church does indeed lend support the very clear possibility that it did indeed come from outside of Christianity, which again the Catholic church does NOT DENY but openly admit that they ADAPTED to the cultures and therefore paganism did indeed MIX within the Catholic church. So then little by little tolerances were made accepting pagan practices within the Catholic church that gradually evolve to what it is today over many centuries.
For me personally I can perhaps see the wafer of bread being used as the element of BREAD as a CONVENIENT way and perhaps even a more sanitary way to distribute communion among a large group of believers. Even some Protestant churches use a communion compressed wafer of bread and a small thimble size cup of wine or grape juice as the elements of communion, but at least the Protestants BREAK these individuals wafers of bread as a REMEMBRANCE of the broken or beaten body of Jesus that was broken for us before they eat or partake of the body of Jesus Christ. And at least the Protestant churches also do NOT withhold the cup of wine from the common people, but rather ALL believers drink the small drink of wine or grape juice together as a REMEMBRANCE of the shed blood of Jesus that he shed for the forgiveness of our sins.
But to me personally if I it was my choice to make in the church that I attend, then it is more meaningful for ME to use a loaf of bread that is BROKEN and then SHARED between all believers as a remembrance that we are all part of the SAME body of Jesus. I realize that among a large group of believers this would be more difficult to do and also a very slow process as well so I understand the using of the individual elements as a matter of convenience and sanitation to prevent the spreading of germs. But among smaller groups to me the symbolic meaning of SHARING or COMMUNING together giving thanks is better expressed using a single LOAF of bread and a single CUP of wine or grape juice if you do not believe in drinking wine.
I mean this is the very root meaning of “COMMUNION” that means the SHARING of one thing that we ALL have in COMMON, which is our common faith in the suffering and death of our Lord Jesus Christ and his resurrection. And it is the partaking of communion that we use the symbols that Jesus gave to us to SHARE together in REMEMBRANCE of his suffering and death, but even more so in his glorious resurrection. Jesus said take and eat ALL of you and take drink ALL of you.
The word “communion” is translated for the Greek word “KOINONIA”, which means fellowship, CLOSE association between persons, emphasizing what is COMMON between them. This word also means SHARING. So to ME personally the taking of communion loses this element of sharing the ONE body of Jesus, when each believer is given an individual wafer. Again I understand about the spreading of germs and such and that this CLOSE SHARING is repulsive to some Christians so I suppose every one has the right to choose how they partake of communion.
But on the other hand to dogmatically DEMAND with the threat of excommunicating a believer from the church is going too far. I mean that if a believer does not believe exactly the way that the Catholic church teaches and celebrates communion, then they can no longer call themselves a believer is going beyond what Jesus meant by giving this ordinance or this partaking of communion in remembrance of his suffering and death for our sins.
I mean for me personally and I am not speaking in behalf of all Protestants, but rather I am speaking of mu own personally convictions that if you want to believe that Jesus is indeed PRESENT with you as you partake of communion than this is perfectly BIBLICAL because the SPIRIT of Almighty God and his Son Jesus now dwells IN you. But I cannot agree with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in that the bread and wine itself actually CHANGES into the flesh and blood of Jesus in substance or in any other way. This HALF so called miracle is definitely NOT Biblical. Again please read the study "Is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation BIBLICAL?". And most assuredly without fail I cannot agree with the IMAGE of the Monstrance and the ceremonial practices of the Roman Catholic church. Jesus being PRESENT when Christians take communion yes, but all the other ritual practices of the Catholic church are NOT taught in the NEW Testament. So most Protestants welcome Catholics to take communion, but NOT SO with the Roman Catholic church, who in truth falsely teaches that they ALONE are the one true church and ONLY those who are baptized as Catholics are saved.
You see my dear brothers and sister in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church, the Roman Catholic church does NOT give her followers a choice as to how they would choose to partake of communion, but in most Protestant churches no one is forced to partake in communion in a way that they themselves sincerely believe is not after the Biblical manner or the breaking of bread and partaking of the cup of wine. The following is the official stand of the Roman Catholic church:
Do you deny that Christ complete in body, blood, soul and divinity are present in the Eucharist? Then you are considered anathema!
OF TRENT: SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON CONFIRMATION CANON I
Do you say that the communion is only a sign, symbol or figure of Jesus and deny that Christ complete in body, blood, soul and divinity are present in the Eucharist? Then you are considered anathema!
OF TRENT: THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF
THE EUCHARIST CANON I
Do you deny the doctrine of Transubstantiation since it is not taught in the scripture? Then you are considered anathema!
SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST CANON lI:
Do you believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is the only sacrifice that will offer forgiveness of sins (Heb 10:12-14) and therefore deny that we receive forgiveness of sins by taking the Eucharist? Then you are considered anathema!
OF TRENT: THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF
THE EUCHARIST CANON V
Do you believe that we should not worship the bread of the Eucharist as if it were Christ complete? Then you are considered anathema!
OF TRENT: THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF
THE EUCHARIST CANON VI
Do you believe that the Mass is NOT a real and true sacrifice offered to God because the Bible specifically says that there will be no more sacrifice for sins (Heb 10:18)? Then you are considered anathema!
OF TRENT: TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
Do you believe that the Mass is NOT a propitiatory sacrifice that should be offered for the sins of both the living and dead saints for forgiveness of sins, punishment, etc.? Then you are considered anathema!
OF TRENT: TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
In other words, if you as a Catholic even THINK of not accepting and obeying ALL that the Roman Catholic church teaches, then you are ANATHEMA in the eyes of the Catholic church. Now an “anathema” is a CURSE that literally says that those who do not believe ALL that the Roman Catholic church teaches is therefore cursed with a curse and are considered to be cut off from God. In other words, if a Catholic does NOT believe ALL that the Roman Catholic church teaches then they can no longer call themselves “CATHOLIC”, which to a Catholic is saying that if they do not believe ALL that the Catholic church teaches then they can NOT be saved and therefore they will suffer eternal torment in the fire of hell.
But this is NOT what the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible teaches us as Christian. The bible teaches us that we are ALL brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ even though we may not all AGREE on every point of doctrine. So do NOT be DECEIVED by the FEAR that they enemy uses to keep you in DARKNESS. You see the devil does NOT want you to read the word of god for YOURSELF, because he knows that if you do, then you will know the TRUTH and that the truth will set you free from RELIGION and bring you into a closer fellowship with Almighty God himself. So I encourage you to read the Bible fro yourself And also please read the study “IS THE DOCTRINE OF HELL BIBLICAL?” and “DOES Revelation 20:10 Teach ETERNAL TORMENT?” for a sound Biblical understanding of the final judgment of the wicked. But for now let us take a look at some HISTORY of the early church in the first to fourth century.
Ireneas writes against the HERESIES of Valentinus and Marcus saying:
In the first book, which immediately precedes this, exposing "knowledge falsely so called," I showed thee, my very dear friend, that the whole system devised, in many and opposite ways, by those who are of the school of Valentinus, was false and baseless. I also set forth the tenets of their predecessors, proving that they not only differed among themselves, but had long previously swerved from the truth itself. I further explained, with all diligence, the doctrine as well as PRACTICE of Marcus the MAGICIAN, since he, too, belongs to these persons; and I carefully noticed the passages which they garble from the Scriptures, with the view of adapting them to their own fictions.
Please notice what the Catholic saint Irenaeus goes on to write:
1. But there is another among these heretics, Marcus by name, who boasts himself as having improved upon his master. He is a perfect adept in magical impostures, and by this means drawing away a great number of men, and not a few women, he has induced them to join themselves to him, as to one who is possessed of the greatest knowledge and perfection, and who has received the highest power from the invisible and ineffable regions above. Thus it appears as if he really were the precursor of Antichrist. For, joining the buffooneries of Anaxilaus to the craftiness of the MAGI, as they are called, he is regarded by his senseless and cracked-brain followers as working MIRACLES by these means.
2. Pretending to CONSECRATE cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, he contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour, so that Charis, who is one of those that are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the Charis, who is set forth by this magician, may also flow into them. Again, handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated,) and pouting from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words: "May that Chaffs who is before all things, and who transcends all knowledge and speech, fill thine inner man, and multiply in thee her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in thee as in good soil." Repeating certain other like words, and thus goading on the wretched woman [to madness], he then appears a worker of wonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small one, so as even to overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several other similar things, he has completely deceived many, and drawn them away after him.
3. It appears probable enough that this man possesses a demon as his familiar spirit, by means of whom he seems able to prophesy, and also enables as many as he counts worthy to be partakers of his Charis themselves to prophesy (Book 1, Chapter 13, Verses 1-3).
Now here the Roman Catholic church quote Irenaes who CONDEMNS these magical like heathen pagan practices supposedly CONSECRATING mixed cups of WINE and supposedly CHANGING those cups of WINE into the very BLOOD of this woman goddess. But several centuries later the Catholic church herself adopts this same kind of pagan practice herself in her ritualistic prayers of consecration of the elements of communion to say that they are CHANGED or TRANSUBTANTIATED into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus to be worshiped and then eaten.
To me it is quite interesting to note just how very similar this pagan practice that MIXED with early Christianity, but was directly opposed and exposed as FALSE heretical teaching in the early church now resembles the Roman Catholic church of MYSTERY of the Eucharistic mass. And further the Roman church is becoming even more like this pagan ritual by it's now beginning to claim that Mary is in the Eucharist as well. And when Catholic MYSTERY of the Eucharistic mass is compare to Marcus and Mithraism it becomes clear that this pagan religion was the first to associate a woman with a ceremony of a CHANGE of wine into blood.
But more interesting to me is that in the early church Marcus and his CONSECRATING a wafer of bread and a cup of wine to magically CHANGE their substance to FLESH and BLOOD was a religious HERESY with mystic practices. So yes, Irenaeus correctly labels this WHOLE pagan MYSTERY as being HERETICAL. But yet the Roman Catholic church today teaches that it is heresy if you do not believe in the CHANGE of the wafer of bread and the cup of wine into the very body soul and divinity of Jesus in the form of a piece of bread that is to be WORSHIPED on the SAME level that Christians are of worship Almighty God the Father and his Son Jesus with the threat of anathema.
Here is yet another piece of evidence from the history of the church. Again please notice that a Catholic priest named Bagatti admits that the original "Eucharist" was NOT like the one that is now used by his church:
At FIRST the celebration of the Eucharist or “the breaking of bread” was NOT associated with the readings and ritual prayers, but with the agape, in imitation of the Supper of the Lord. (Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Circumcision. Nihil obstat: Marcus Adinolfi, 13 Maii 1970. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari, 14 Junii 1970. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 26 Junii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, 1971, p. 114)
In other words, the eraly Christians never celebrate a ritual ceremony like the Roman Catholic “MASS” when they came together to share the breaking of bread in REMEMBRANCE of the suffering and death of Jesus with a grateful heart of thanksgiving.
Roman Catholic scholars are indeed aware of the connections between Mithraism and the ceremonial rituals of the Roman Catholic church, but tend to brush them off, so to speak, by not telling the Catholic people:
The view most widely held today among upholders of the historico-religious theory is that the Eucharist and the Mass originated in the practices of the Persian Mithraism (Dieterich, H. T. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Robertson, etc.). "In the Mandaean mass" writes Cumont ("Mysterien des Mithra", Leipzig, 1903, p.118), "the celebrant consecrated bread and water, which he mixed with perfumed Haoma-juice, and ate this food while performing the functions of divine service". Tertullian in anger ascribed this mimicking of Christian rites to the "devil" and observed in astonishment (De prescript haeret, C. xl): "celebrat (Mithras) et panis oblationem." (Pohle. J. Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas. Sacrifice of the Mass. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Published 1911. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
There were seven degrees of initiation into the mithraic mysteries...The fathers conducted the worship. The chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called "Pater Patrum" or Pater Patratus." The members below the degree of pater called one another "brother," and social distinctions were forgotten in Mithraic unity...A sacred meal was celebrated of bread and haoma juice for which in the West wine was substituted. This meal was supposed to give the participants super-natural virtue...Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples (Arendzen. J.P. Transcribed by John Looby. Mithraism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Published 1911. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Now again these are not my words, but rather the words of Catholic scholars. With that being said, it is interesting to note that Mithraism had some type of father of all fathers just like the Roman pope. These pagan "fathers" conduct their worship services in much the same way the priests or the fathers conduct Eucharist ceremony in the Roman Catholic church of today.
But again please keep in mind that an early Catholic saint Ireneaus condemned these pagan practices of Marcus, but in the centuries to follow they emerged once again to form the Roman Catholic church of today. And Tertullian in anger ascribed this mimicking of Christian rites to the "devil" and observed in astonishment.
The TRUTH of the matter is that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper of Jesus as is the Catholic church teaches. In TRUTH the real presence of Jesus was argued back and forth for centuries before finally becoming an official article of faith. And even argued further before it was accepted by SOME to be NECESSARY for salvation, that is to say, according to the Roman Catholic Church.
The idea of a BODILY presence of Jesus was indeed held by SOME, but it was also OPPOSED by others as NOT being Biblical. And certainly most Christian believed in some kind of PRESENCE of God, but NOT specifically IN the bread and the wine, but rather in the room where they felt the very presence of God upon them like on the day of Pentecost. However some Christians like Ambrose, did indeed believe in the real presence of Jesus in the actual elements of communion, but please keep in mind that these elements were still yet in the form of a LOAF of bread and the cup of wine.
You see it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, who was a Benedictine monk, that published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine of transubstantiation. But it was almost another four hundred years that this theological war between OPPOSING OPINIONS of believers continued to be waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D. that this doctrine of transubstantiation was officially defined and canonized as a dogma.
So then just like many other teachings of the Roman Catholic church this doctrine of transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions and then was MIXED withing the Catholic church. Again please read the study “IS THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION BIBLICAL?” for an in depth sound Biblical study on this subject. But for now the idea of transubstantiation can be compared to the characteristic of the religion of Mithra where the sacraments of ROUND FLAT CAKES and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic of the round disc shaped wafer of bread called the HOST.
You see, the practice of CHANGING these round cakes of bread into the flesh of their gods and then eating the flesh of deity was very common among the pagan people of Mexico and Central America long before Christianity came to be. History tells us that when Spanish missionaries first landed in these countries:
"their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.
Again the Christian Church AFTER the death of the last apostle were DIVIDED over many subjects of the New Testament writings of the original 12 apostles of Jesus. So for the first three hundred years there was a great controversy as to what the apostle of Jesus MEANT by their writings of the New Testament. The truth of the matter there were many divisions in the church over different doctrines and many false pagan teaching were mixed with Christianity, but many remained faithful to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
However, after Constantine came on the scene as a newly converted Christian and a Roman emperor who declared Christianity the state religion, then many thousands of pagans were grafted into the church by baptism alone without any TRUE conversion by FAITH. So it is clear to see how these may pagans brought with them their pagan rituals of worship into the church.
You see, these pagans had many different name for their gods and when they saw the teachings of the church were in many ways the same as what they believe so it was no big deal to them to change the name of their gods to the name of Almighty God, the Father, the Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit for they also had three main gods that they worshiped as well.
Even the noted Catholic theologian, Cardinal Newman, tells us that Constantine introduced many things of pagan origin into the Catholic church:
"We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own...The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, pp. 359, 360.
This unholy alliance also allowed the continuance of the pagan custom of eating and drinking the literal flesh and literal blood of their god. This is actually how transubstantiation entered the professing church.
Jesus did not say “touto gignetai” that means this has become or is turned into my body and blood, but rather Jesus simply said touto esti”, which can only mean this represents or stands for my body and blood. So then, it is made perfectly clear in the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, that Jesus spoke in figurative terms. referring to HIMSELF as "the door," "the vine'', "the light," and many other figurative things, and in the same way Jesus was using figurative or SYMBOLIC language when he broke the bread saying take eat this is my body do this in REMEMBRANCE of me. Again I cover all the scripture that the Roman Catholic church uses to try and support the real presence of Jesus in the elements of communion in the study “Is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation BIBLICAL?”, but for now let us continue with some history as to when this doctrine actually became dog,a of the roman Catholic church.
The COUNCIL of TRENT on TRANSUBSTANTIATION:
When Europe was electrified by the eloquent preaching of the sixteenth century Reformation, the Roman Catholic hierarchy gathered her ablest theologians who worked for three decades in the preparation of a statement of faith concerning transubstantiation.
This document remains, to this day, the standard of Catholic doctrine. As the Second Vatican Council commenced, Pope John XXIII declared, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent."
But what did the Council of Trent decide and declare? The first sections are as follows:
"If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, or virtually, — let him be accursed."
"If any one shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the outward forms of the bread and wine still remaining, which conversion the Catholic church most aptly calls transubstantiation, — let him be accursed."
"If any one shall deny, that in the venerated sacrament of the Eucharist, entire Christ is contained in each kind, and in each several particle of either kind when separated, — let him be accursed."
"If any one shall say that, after consecration, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is only in the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist in use whilst it is taken, and not either before or after, and that the true body of the Lord does not remain in the hosts or particles which have been consecrated, and which are reserved, or remain after the communion, — let him be accursed."
"If any one says that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins or that other effects do not result from it, — let him be accursed."
"If any one shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy and universal rites and customs of the holy Church, and that He is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that His adorers are idolaters, — let him be accursed."
The council of Trent did not first meet until 1554, which is over 1,500 years after the first apostles of Jesus and it took three decades to come to an agreement on this subject of real presence of Jesus in the elements of communion. Think about this for a moment and let these historical FACTS set in. This great CONTROVERSY was NOT settled within the Roman Catholic church ITSELF until over one thousand five hundred years or arguing among the Bishops who come not come to an agreement on this subject of real presence and then after they finally all came together at the council or Trent it took another THIRTY years to finally reach an agreement. But please keep in mind that this is only one PART of the body of Jesus Christ. By this time most Protestants could no longer tolerate the teachings of the Roman church because they did NOT agree with the word of TRUTH so they split from the Roman church and formed their own smaller groups of believers. Now it may be that IF these Christians would have stayed and continued to fight against the Roman Catholic teachings that did NOT agree with the Bible, then this doctrine of transubstantiation would NOT have EVER been made an OFFICIAL doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. Just an observation to THINK about. No body can undo what has already been done, but we can still OPPOSE that which is NOT sound Biblical teaching. Moving on.
VATICAN II UPHOLDS TRENT:
Vatican II began in 1962 and ended in 1965. Some two thousand, five hundred bishops, and each with his committee of theologians, worked the greater part of four years, and spent between forty and sixty million dollars.
Dozens of resolutions, called "Schemae," were passed, hundreds of similar ones were rejected, and thousands were proposed, most of which were reported in newspapers around the world.
At the third session, the Council produced Sacrosanctum Concilium (The Holy Liturgy). One of its articles entitled "The Mystery of the Eucharist'' completely reaffirmed its belief and practice in the changing of the bread and wine at the mass into the very body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
It was not long thereafter that Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical, Mysterium Fidei, which reads in part:
"During the Second Vatican Council the Church has made a new and most solemn profession of her faith in and worship of this mystery...For if the sacred liturgy holds the first place in the life of the Church, the mystery of the Eucharist stands as the heart and center...Those who partake of this sacrament in Holy Communion eat the Flesh of Christ and drink the Blood of Christ, receiving both grace, the beginning of eternal life, and the 'medicine of immortality,'...Indeed, we are aware of the fact that, among those who deal with this Most Holy Mystery in written or spoken word, there are some who...spread abroad such opinions as disturb the faithful and fill their minds with no little confusion about matters of faith as if every one were permitted to consign to oblivion doctrine already defined by the Church, or to interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the approved import of the concepts involved...the spread of these and similar opinions does great harm to the faith and devotion to the Divine Eucharist... we cannot approve the opinions which they express...We must therefore approach this mystery especially with humble obedience, not following human arguments, which ought to be silent...It is a logical conclusion, then, that we should follow as a guiding star in our investigations of this mystery the agisterium of the Church, to which the Divine Redeemer entrusted for protection and for explanation the revelation which He has communicated to us through Scripture or tradition having this from conviction that 'what since the days of antiquity was preached and believed throughout the whole Church with true Catholic Faith is true, even if it is not comprehended by reason, even if it is not explained by means of words'...we are not to tolerate anyone who on his own authority wishes to modify the formulae in which the Council of Trent sets forth the Mystery of the Eucharist for our belief...It is the teaching of the First Vatican Council: 'that meaning of the sacred dogmas must forever be retained which Holy Mother Church has once defined and we may never depart from that meaning under the pretext and in the name of deeper understanding.'...the Catholic Church has held to this faith in the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, not only in her teaching but also in her practice, since she has at all times given to this great Sacrament the worship which is known as latria and which may be given to God alone.
As St. Augustine says: 'It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation. No one, however, eats of this flesh without having first adored it...and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would sin if we did not do so.'...The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers the cult of latria to the Sacrament of the Eucharist...We therefore beseech you, venerable brothers...Tirelessly promote the cult of the Eucharist, the focus where all other forms of piety must ultimately meet and converge...May all those not yet in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, who though separated from her are honored by and glory in the name of Christian, share with us as soon as possible with the help of divine grace that unity of faith and communion which Christ wanted to be the distinctive mark of His disciples...May the Most Blessed Virgin Mary from whom Christ Our Lord took the flesh which under the appearances of bread and wine 'is contained, offered, and received in this Sacrament,' and all the saints of God, especially those who had a more ardent devotion to the Divine Eucharist, intercede with the Father of mercies so that from this same faith in and devotion to the Eucharist may come forth and flourish a perfect unity among all who bear the name Christian."
So then unless a Christian who has not been baptized in the Roman Catholic church can NOT share in communion in the catholic church unless the believe the doctrine of transubstantiation and they also worship with latria type worship the Eucharistic HOST first. the latria level of worship is the highest form of worship that is to be given ONLY to Almighty God and his Son according to the Catholic church.
Thus Pope Paul VI reaffirmed his loyalty to those canons of Trent which belched curses for those who deny them. Every Roman Catholic, under pain of mortal sin and excommunication is obliged to render religious worship to the host.
Is it not then "double-talk", so to speak, for the Roman Catholic church to consider non-Catholics as Christians or "separated brethren" when indeed at the same time they are considered accursed from the Lord? The early church called false teachers heretics, but they did not call them APOSTATES, which means to depart from the Lord completely.
We have already seen from the Catholic encyclopedia that the Catholic church has ADAPTED to the cultures around. This same adaptability is seen in the Catholic church today as they seem to be moving toward a one world church. The catholic church seems to be not putting as much emphasis on statues and icons. Praying the rosary comes and goes where sometimes it is pushed and at other time it is not as unpopular. Limbo is not heard of much anymore, but purgatory still seems to be taught pretty heavily. Even prayers to Mary fluctuate, in fact there is a petition by some Catholic to get the Hail Mary removed from association with the mass. But it seems that the doctrine of transubstantiation is here to stay in the Roman Catholic church, perhaps because it was made an INFALLIBLE DOGMA by the pope.
But as I said earlier this study is more to be focused on the origin of the Eucharistic HOST and the Monstrance that holds the Host with the IHS symbol upon it.
Here is what the Catholic encyclopedia says about the design of the Monstrance of the Ostensorium to be in the image of a SUN emitting SUN rays under the heading of Alar vessels:
The most appropriate form (for the monstrance) is that of the sun emitting its rays to all sides (Instructio Clement., 5).
If you click on the link on the letters SFS you can view an Ostensorium close up and you will notice the three letters sFs on the stand of the Monstrance above a flaming heart. Each of these letters is a universal symbol for the number 6 in the pagan mysteries, so to the pagan it reads 666! The number 666 is also associated with what is called the "magic square of the SUN". The practice of equating names and letters with numbers is called gematria.
The letter F:
The Hebrew letter Vau (V) has a value of 6. The English letter F is a descendant of Vau and retains the same value. The letter F is also the 6th letter of the English alphabet. In pagan numerology the letters F, O, and X have the value of 6.
The Greek symbol Digamma also looks like the letter F and has a value of 6.
The letter S:
The Greek equivalent of Vau is the letter Stau, which looks like an S, and it also has the value of 6.
Sources: The Modern Numerology by John King, published by Blandford, Copyright © 1996, ISBN 0-7137-2560-5, page 121 / Behind Numerology, by Shirley Blackwell Lawrence, published by Newcastle Publishing Co., Inc., Copyright © 1989, ISBN 0-87877-145-X, page 93 / Jesus Christ Sun of God, by David Fideler, Copyright © 1993, published by Quest Books of Wheaton Illinois and Madras India, ISBN 0-8356-0696-1, page 27.
For further reading on the pagan origin of the HOST with the symbol IHS on it please clink on this link from where I got the information about the letters SFS.
I will share just one more of many facts from this website that I found extremely interesting, which shows where the Roman Catholic church is heading with her veneration of Mary.
A very large Monstrance standing 9 feet tall was recently made for St. Stanislaus Kostka Church in Chicago. This large Ostensorium depicts the Ark of the Covenant with two Cherubim; one on either side with wings overspread, and Mary in place on the mercy seat of the Ark of covenant. And on Mary's chest is the IMAGE of a SUNBURST that houses a one foot wide WAFER HOST.
To me, this can be interpreted as nothing other than IDOLATRY and the worship of a mother goddess. A Catholic bishop in the fifth century warned the church of Rome that if Mary were to continue to be called the mother of “God” as opposed to being called the mother of Jesus or the mother of our Lord, then she would eventually be worshiped as a “GODDESS”. This Catholic bishops words have come to pass in the Catholic church of today. This large Monstrance looks very similar to an IDOL sitting in a state of meditation. Click on the link above if you have not already done so and take a look with OPEN eyes seeking the TRUTH.
And in the fifth century, another Bishop complained that “If Mary is called the Mother of God, she will be made into a goddess…” (Chapman, John. "Nestorius and Nestorianism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 4 Aug. 2011 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm>).
The catholic encyclopedia goes on to say the following:
Devotion to Our Blessed Lady in its ultimate analysis must be regarded as a practical application of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Seeing that this doctrine is not contained, at least explicitly in the earlier forms of the Apostles' Creed, there is perhaps no ground for surprise if we do not meet with any clear traces of the cultus of the Blessed Virgin in the FIRST Christian centuries.
The earliest unmistakable examples of the "worship" -- we use the word of course in the relative sense -- of the saints is connected with the veneration paid to the martyrs who gave their lives for the Faith...Further, it is quite likely that the mention of the Blessed Virgin in the intercessions of the diptychs of the liturgy goes back to the days before the Council of Nicaea, but we have no definite evidence upon the point, and the same must be said of any form of direct invocation, even for purposes of private devotion (Herbert Thurston. Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
So then, according to the Roman Catholic church these Catholic writers openly admit that there is NO evidence of Marian adoration prior to the 4th century, which is when the Council of Nicaea was called to settle the many controversies among the many different groups of Christians. In other words, it is only SUSPECTED that some Christians were venerating Mary in some way as the mother of "God". But the NEW Testament does NOT venerate Mary in any way other than saying that she is blessed among women, because she was the one chosen to given birth to Jesus who shall be called the Son of the Highest. Now it is a true historical fact that SOME Christians did indeed give adoration to Mary.
However, it was NOT documented as a part of the original faith or earliest traditions among any of these groups of believers before the fourth century, when a catholic bishop states the following:
Yet, In the LATE fourth century, the Catholic Bishop Epiphanius WARNED that some were worshipping Mary and were causing ”excess awe of the saint” (Epiphanius. Section VII, pp. 618-629)--he thus seemed to clearly condemn what is now referred to by Catholics as veneration of Mary.
So then, seeing that the Roman Catholic church uses TRADITION to form their doctrines, then how is it that the blatantly IGNORE some of the church history, but then selectively choose only those portions of church history that does NOT oppose he present day teachings?
This is something that every Catholic should know! So I implore you my dear brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ, who are in the Catholic church to read the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible, for YOURSELF in order to prove to yourself whether or not you are being taught the truth of the WHOLE word of Almighty God. Please read the study “EVERY CATHOLIC NEEDS TO KNOW THE TRUTH!”
Thanks for reading and may God bless you richly as you continue to see the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of God.
Your bother in our Lord Jesus Christ,
RETURN TO HOMEPAGE