The Catholic Chronicles by Keith Green: Chronicle I

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

lesjude

New Member
May 8, 2012
217
3
0
78
Central New York State
THE CATHOLIC CHRONICLES by Keith Green

CHRONICLE I
One might wonder why, in a scriptural expose of the doctrines of the
Catholic Church, I would choose this subject The Roman
interpretation of the Lord's Supper (more commonly known as
"Communion") for the first of the "Catholic Chronicles". Most
Protestants (today, Protestants are considered to be members of any
church or church-group outside the Roman Catholic or Eastern
Orthodox churches) would expect me to deal with what they might
consider the more obvious departures from biblical foundation such
as…
the worship of and prayers to the Virgin Mary,
the infallibility of the pope,
purgatory and prayers for the dead,
the history of the torture and burning of accused "heretics"

…and such like that- and no doubt in future installments we shall look
in-depth at each of these. But for this first article I believe that we
should get right to the root, before we begin exploring the branches of
Roman Doctrine and practice. And any Catholic who has even a
small knowledge of his church knows that the central focus of each
gathering (known as the "mass") is the Holy Eucharist.

THE EUCHARIST
The word "Eucharist" is a Greek word that means "thanksgiving". In
the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus is described as "giving
thanks" before breaking the bread (Luke 22:19), and so this word
became a proper name for the Lord's Supper in the early Catholic
Church. Today, it is more commonly associated with the elements in
communion, especially the host or "wafer", although the ceremony
itself is still called "The Holy Eucharist". Now, you might be wondering
why I'm taking so much time and effort to explain something as
harmless as the ceremony known around the world as communion. If
you've ever been to church at all, (Protestant or Catholic), you've
probably taken part in a communion service. So why make all this
fuss about bread and wine? Why? Because that's where the similarity
between evangelical communion services and the Roman Catholic
Mass ends- at the bread and the wine!

TRANSUBSTANTIATION
That 18-letter word above is a complete theological statement. and
the name of a doctrine, out of which springs the most astounding set
of beliefs and practices that has ever been taught in the name of
religion. Very, very few people know what the Catholic Church
actually believes and teaches concerning this subject and I am
convinced that even fewer Catholics realize themselves what they are
taking part in. From earliest childhood, "This is the body of Christ" is
all they've ever heard when the priest gingerly placed the wafer on
their tongue. And as they grew up it was so natural and part of normal
religious life, that their minds never even questioned the fact that
Jesus Christ, Himself, was actually in their mouth!

It might be hard for you to believe, but that's exactly, literally, what
"transubstantiation" means. The Roman Catholic Church teaches
their flocks that the bread and the wine used in the Mass actually,
physically, turns into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ after the
priest blesses it during the liturgy (ceremony). Although this in itself
might shock you, it is really only the beginning. For the implications
and practical conclusions of this doctrine are absolutely mindboggling.

EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY
For example, the Roman Church teaches that since their priests are
the only ones who have the authority from God to pronounce the
blessing which changes the elements of communion into the actual
body and blood of Jesus, that they are the only church where Jesus
"physically resides" even now! Let me quote a letter written to one of
the girls in our ministry from a devoted Catholic:

"To explain the Catholic Church would take volumes, but basically the
Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ when He was here on
earth. It is the only church founded by Jesus. The greatest asset of
our church is that we have Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist. He is
really here, body, soul and divinity. He is God and in His omnipotence
can do anything He wishes, and He decided to remain with us until
the end of the world in the form of the host (the "wafer") in Holy
Communion."

If you think this is just the isolated opinion of someone on the fringe of
the church, or that the Catholic Church as a whole does not really
believe or teach this, I beg you to read on. For not only is this the
official teaching of Rome, but according to irreversible church decree
(called dogma), anyone who does not hold to this belief, in the most
explicit detail, is accursed and damned forever!

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
When Europe was electrified by the eloquent preaching of the
sixteenth century Reformation, the Roman Catholic hierarchy
gathered together. Her theologians worked for three decades on 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 in 1963, Pope John XXIII
declared,

"I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the
Council of Trent".

What did the Council of Trent decide and declare? Some of the first
sections are as follows:

Canon I: "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, let him be accursed!"

Canon II: "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...let him be
accursed!"

Canon III: "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 WORSHIP OF THE HOST
"You shall not make unto you any engraved image... You shall not
bow down yourself to them, nor serve them..." The Second
Commandment (Ex.20:4-5)

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and
truth." John 4:23 The words of Jesus Christ

In Canon VI, a rite of worship called "Latria" was spoken of. This is
not just an "ancient custom", it is thoroughly practiced today in every
Mass. After the bread has been supposedly "changed" into Christ by
the priest, it is placed in a holder called the monstrance. And before
this monstrance the Catholic must bow and worship (this act is called
"genuflecting") the little wafer as God! Sometimes they have
processions where they solemnly march, as the congregation bows
and offers praise and worship to this piece of bread!

The Roman teaching that Jesus Christ is physically present in each
morsel of bread creates many other doctrinal and practical problems.
For instance, when the service is over, what happens to all those
leftover wafers that have been "changed into Christ"? Do they change
back into bread again when the priest goes home? I'm afraid not. For
according to Canon IV of the Council of Trent, they stay flesh! And
don't think that 400 year-old decree is just some dusty old manuscript
in a museum case somewhere. It still is completely adhered to and
passionately practiced. As an example, here is a passage from an
official Catholic home instruction book, copyrighted 1978:

"Jesus Christ does not cease to exist under the appearances of
bread and wine after the Mass is over. Furthermore, some hosts are
usually kept in all Catholic churches. In these hosts, Jesus is
physically and truly present, as long as the appearances of bread
remain. Catholics therefore have the praiseworthy practice of 'making
visits' to our Lord present in their churches to offer Him their thanks,
their adoration, to ask for help and forgiveness; in a word, to make
Him the center around which they live their daily lives.' ('1)
That is an incredible interpretation of how to make Jesus the center of
your daily life!

WHEN DID THIS TEACHING BEGIN?
The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last
Supper as most Catholics suppose. It was a controversial topic for
many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith (which
means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome). The idea of
a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose,
but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a
Benedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the
doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological war
was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at
the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and
canonized as a dogma (A "Dogma" is a teaching or doctrine that can
never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible) by
Pope Innocent III.

The historian Tertullian tells us that when this doctrine first began to
be taught in the Middle Ages, that the priests took great care that no
crumb should fall lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a
mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what
should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the
sacrament. At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a
communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and
the man should be destroyed by burning!(2) By the end of the eleventh
century, lest someone should spill God's blood, some in the church
began to hold back the cup from the people and finally in 1415, the
Council of Constance officially denied the cup to laymen. Although
today, by decree of the Vatican, churches may now offer the cup
optionally to communicants.

HOW ROME VIEWS THE BIBLE
Before we proceed to look at what the Bible has to say on this
subject, it is important to understand the official Catholic view of the
Scriptures. According to unquestionable decree, they hold that
"Church tradition has equal authority with the Bible". This is not just a
theological view, but it was made an article of faith by the same
Council of Trent in 1545! And again, this view is completely held by
the Church today:

"The teachings of the Church will always be in keeping with the
teachings of the Scripture and it is through the teaching of the Church
that we understand more fully truths of sacred Scripture. To the
Catholic Church belongs the final word in the understanding and
meaning of the Holy Spirit in the words of the Bible."

And explaining the premise used in interpreting the Bible:

"...usually the meaning of the Scriptures is sought out by those who
are specially trained for this purpose. And in their conclusions, they
know that no explanation of the Scriptures which contradicts the
truths constantly taught by the infallible Church can be true." (3)

Any thinking person can see how such a mode of interpretation can
be dangerously used to manipulate Scripture to mean absolutely
anything at all! Who has not observed this of the various cults? The
Moonies, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all back up their false
teachings with "new revelations" and "inspired interpretations" of the
Scriptures each claiming that the Holy Spirit revealed these new
truths to their founders. One opens themselves to all kinds of
deception when they judge the Bible by what their church or pastor
teaches, instead of judging what their church or pastor teaches by the
Bible!

CATHOLIC PROOF-TEXTS EXPLAINED
With this in mind, we will briefly discuss the two main passages of
Scripture that the Roman Church uses while trying to show that Jesus
Himself, taught transubstantiation.

John 6:54-55: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal
life; and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food,
and My blood is true drink."

Catholics are taught here, that Jesus is explaining how He is literally
offering them His flesh and blood, so that they may have eternal life
by physically eating Him. With just a little study of the whole passage
(vs. 27-71), it is clear that Jesus was not talking about physical, but
spiritual food and drink. Food is eaten to satisfy hunger. And in verse
35 Jesus says, "He who comes to Me shall never hunger". Now,
Jesus is not promising eternal relief from physical hunger pains. He
is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for
righteousness and salvation. And He promises to those who will
"come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever
therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28, John
4:31-34.)

We drink also to satisfy thirst, and again in verse 35 Jesus tells us,
"He that believes on Me shall never thirst." Therefore, to believe on
Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14.) No one can say that here
Jesus was establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and
blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who
gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you,
they are spirit, and they are life." Thus Jesus makes clear what we
should be eating and drinking to have eternal life! (See also Matt.4:4.)
Matt. 26:26 and 28: "This is My body …this is My blood." Catholics
base their whole religious system on their interpretation of these two
verses. They adamantly teach that right here, Jesus is pronouncing
the first priestly blessing that mysteriously changes the bread and
wine into His body and blood.

The absolute folly of such a conclusion is proved by this one
observation: He was literally still there before, during, and after they
had partaken of the bread and the cup! He was not changed into
some liquid and bread- His flesh was still on His bones, and His blood
still in His veins. He had not vanished away to reappear in the form of
a piece of bread or a cup of wine!

Let's look closer at His words. No one can deny that here we have
figurative language. Jesus did not say "touto gignetai" ("this has
become" or "is turned into"), but "touto esti" ("this signifies,
represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in
Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic!
And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of
liquid was really "blood". One time, David's friends heard him express
a strong desire for water from the well of Bethlehem. In spite of
extreme danger, these men broke through the enemy lines of the
Philistines and brought the water to him. When David found out that
these men had risked their lives in this way, he refused to drink the
water, exclaiming, "Is not this the blood of the men who went in
jeopardy of their lives?" (II Sam. 23:17).

Throughout the gospels we find similar metaphorical language: Jesus
referring to Himself as "the Door", "the Vine", "the Light", "the Root",
"the Rock", "the Bright and Morning Star", as well as "the Bread". The
passage is written with such common language that it is plain to any
observant reader that the Lord's Supper was intended primarily as a
memorial and in no sense a literal sacrifice. "Do this in remembrance
of Me" (Luke 22:19).

TRUE PAGAN ORIGINS
Where did this teaching and practice really come from? Like many of
the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first
practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that
belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman
Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive
religion" (4) The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were
great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy.(5) In Egypt,
priests would consecrate food cakes which were supposed to
become the flesh of Osiris!(6) The idea of transubstantiation was also
characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes
and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharistic rites.*(7) The idea
of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of
Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ;
and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those 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.

SO WHY DO THEY TEACH IT?
Before concluding our first chronicle, the question needs to be asked,
"Why does the Roman Catholic Church need to have such a doctrine.
Why do they think that Jesus needs them to physically eat Him? That
is what truly puzzled me as I read astounded through the catechism
and doctrinal instruction books. But the answer to that question is not
a pretty one. As I said before, the implications and practical
conclusions of the teaching of transubstantiation are substantially
worse than the doctrine itself and like a great web spun by an
industrious spider, Rome's teachings spiral out from this central hub
like the spokes of a wheel. In the following Catholic Chronicle we will
look intently at the next direct result of transubstantiation in official
Catholic systematic theology: "The Sacrifice of the Mass".
 

jerzy

New Member
Sep 7, 2012
113
0
0
...any Catholic who has even a
small knowledge of his church...

Doesn't know how many even of their own they butchered.

He also doesn't know that "by their fruits".

the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ when He was here on
earth. It is the only church founded by Jesus.

Can you show it written?

Do you think that we are still in dark ages?
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
These cut and paste jobs are a “no effort” way that Protestants use to attack Catholics. I normally ignore them, but I thought I would have a go at this one as an exercise.

Keith Green’s article below is peppered with statements that are not true or partially true, but half a truth is no truth at all.

Or as the Philosopher Karl Popper said: “A statement is true if it coincides with the facts” - and Keith Green's don't!

Keith Green in black
My comments in red
My quotes from other sources in blue.


THE CATHOLIC CHRONICLES by Keith Green

CHRONICLE I
One might wonder why, in a scriptural expose of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I would choose this subject The Roman interpretation of the Lord's Supper (more commonly known as "Communion") for the first of the "Catholic Chronicles". Most Protestants (today, Protestants are considered to be members of any church or church-group outside the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches) would expect me to deal with what they might consider the more obvious departures from biblical foundation such
as…
the worship of and prayers to the Virgin Mary,
the infallibility of the pope,
purgatory and prayers for the dead,
the history of the torture and burning of accused "heretics".

…and such like that- and no doubt in future installments we shall look in-depth at each of these. But for this first article I believe that we should get right to the root, before we begin exploring the branches of Roman Doctrine and practice.

This is a debating tactic called “poisoning the well”. Without actually providing any evidence, it accuses the Catholic Church of false teaching, which many Protestants wrongly assume are true (it is part of their tradition) and thus predisposes them to accept in advance that the Catholic Church teaches error in this matter also.

As we will see it is but the start of a number of erroneous and emotive comments so that by the time Keith Green finally arrives at the main substance of this tract the reader will be set against the Catholic Church and will accept Keith’s interpretation of scripture.

After entitling the article the Catholic Chronicles, and giving the correct title of the Catholic Church in the first sentence (thus demonstrating that he knows the correct title), Keith Green then starts referring to the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Doctrine, thus subtly denigrating the Catholic Church in the readers minds.


And any Catholic who has even a small knowledge of his church knows that the central focus of each gathering (known as the "mass") is the Holy Eucharist.

This is not true. There are many types of gatherings – prayer meetings, study meetings, Benediction, Holy Hours. The Mass is the most important but not the only one. Note also that Mass, as a title of a liturgical celebration, should be capitalised. This may be a minor point but it shows a sloppiness of which we will see more later.

THE EUCHARIST
The word "Eucharist" is a Greek word that means "thanksgiving". In the gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus is described as "giving thanks" before breaking the bread (Luke 22:19), and so this word became a proper name for the Lord's Supper in the early Catholic Church. Today, it is more commonly associated with the elements in communion, especially the host or "wafer",

I can’t recall any Catholic document calling the host the “wafer”. And why is “wafer” in inverted commas and not “host”?

although the ceremony itself is still called "The Holy Eucharist".

The whole liturgy is called the Mass. Keith Green fails to distinguish between the Eucharist itself and the celebration of the Eucharist, more properly called the liturgy of the Eucharist, which is itself only part of the Mass. He thus shows he is already out of his depth in understanding the topic.

Now, you might be wondering why I'm taking so much time and effort to explain something as
harmless as the ceremony known around the world as communion.

Communion is only part of the liturgy of the Eucharist. For Catholics it is a very specific part where we receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharistic species. It is not the name of the whole liturgy.

If you've ever been to church at all, (Protestant or Catholic), you've probably taken part in a communion service. So why make all this fuss about bread and wine? Why? Because that's where the similarity between evangelical communion services and the Roman Catholic Mass ends- at the bread and the wine!

At last, that last sentence is something I can agree with.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION
That 18-letter word above is a complete theological statement, and the name of a doctrine, out of which springs the most astounding set of beliefs and practices that has ever been taught in the name of religion.

Leaving aside the emotive statement “the most astounding set of beliefs and practices that has ever been taught in the name of religion”, beliefs don’t spring out of a doctrine. The doctrine expresses the beliefs. Moreover transubstantiation is not the name of a doctrine, it is a theological concept.

The word was formally approved at the Council of Trent in The Decree on the Eucharist. However

“This decree requires careful interpretation. In particular the doctrine of faith proposed by the Council must be distinguished from the theological concept of “transubstantiation” which is only recognised as an appropriate enunciation of its content.” (The Christian Faith In The Doctrinal Documents of The Catholic Church, edited by J. Neuner S.J. & J. Dupuis, S.J., 1973)

Very, very few people know what the Catholic Church actually believes and teaches concerning this subject
Keith Green is about to demonstrate that he is one of them.

and I am convinced that even fewer Catholics realize themselves what they are taking part in.

How does he know that? How many of the 1.2 billion Catholics does he know?

From earliest childhood, "This is the body of Christ" is all they've ever heard when the priest gingerly placed the wafer on their tongue. And as they grew up it was so natural and part of normal religious life, that their minds never even questioned the fact that Jesus Christ, Himself, was actually in their mouth!

Again how does he know?

The priest says: “The body of Christ”, not “This is the Body of Christ” –another error.



It might be hard for you to believe, but that's exactly, literally, what "transubstantiation" means. The Roman Catholic Church teaches their flocks that the bread and the wine used in the Mass actually, physically, turns into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ after the priest blesses it during the liturgy (ceremony). Although this in itself might shock you, it is really only the beginning. For the implications and practical conclusions of this doctrine are absolutely mindboggling.

A bit overblown and emotive as prose but yes, the implications are mind boggling.

EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY
For example, the Roman Church teaches that since their priests are the only ones who have the authority from God to pronounce the blessing which changes the elements of communion into the actual body and blood of Jesus, that they are the only church where Jesus "physically resides" even now!

The Orthodox Church has apostolic succession and therefore a valid priesthood.

Let me quote a letter written to one of the girls in our ministry from a devoted Catholic:

"To explain the Catholic Church would take volumes, but basically the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ when He was here on earth. It is the only church founded by Jesus. The greatest asset of our church is that we have Jesus present in the Holy Eucharist. He is really here, body, soul and divinity. He is God and in His omnipotence can do anything He wishes, and He decided to remain with us until the end of the world in the form of the host (the "wafer") in Holy
Communion."

If you think this is just the isolated opinion of someone on the fringe of the church, or that the Catholic Church as a whole does not really believe or teach this, I beg you to read on.

This not a reasoned argument (at least so far) it is an emotive “shock horror” condemnation – of what?

For not only is this the official teaching of Rome, but according to irreversible church decree (called dogma), anyone who does not hold to this belief, in the most explicit detail, is accursed and damned forever!

Actually the Church does not say that. Keith Green fails to understand what an “anathema” is.

Formal definitions normally ended with the Latin phrase “anathema sit” (meaning let him/her be anathema). Whilst the origins of the word Greek word anathema can mean accursed, in the Catholic Church it is the name of a formal ceremony of ex-communication conducted by the Pope (abolished in the last century). Anathemas were rarely carried out. In the context of doctrinal decrees it was therefore a phrase which was used to express the seriousness of the doctrinal statement, not some damning to hell of anyone who disagreed.



THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
When Europe was electrified by the eloquent preaching of the sixteenth century Reformation, the Roman Catholic hierarchy gathered together. Her theologians worked for three decades on the preparation of a statement of faith concerning transubstantiation.

Of course they didn’t work for three decade on transubstantiation. The Council of Trent lasted for 18 years, and only that long because it was interrupted by wars and the deaths of four Popes.

The council consisted of 25 sessions, transubstantiation appearing in Session 13.


This document remains, to this day, the standard of Catholic doctrine. As the Second Vatican Council commenced in 1963, Pope John XXIII declared,

"I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent".

What did the Council of Trent decide and declare? Some of the first sections are as follows:

Canon I: "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, let him be accursed!"

Canon II: "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...let him be
accursed!"

Canon III: "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! "

Yes, the Canons of the Council of Trent are still valid.

I’m not sure what points he is making by the above quotes but it is worth noting that the original definitions are in Latin. I have seen, what seem to me, to be clearer translations than those he uses above.

The text he quotes of Canon II is truncated.

The text of Canon III that he quotes is actually Canon VI.

(for what I think are clearer translations see
http://history.hanov...trent/ct13.html)

THE WORSHIP OF THE HOST

The host is not worshipped – Christ, present in the host, is worshipped.

Note what Canon VI says (see Green’s Canon III above):
"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,….” (my emphasis)


"You shall not make unto you any engraved image... You shall not
bow down yourself to them, nor serve them..." The Second
Commandment (Ex.20:4-5)

At last some scripture - not relevant, but scripture rather than shock horror emotive opinions.

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and
truth." John 4:23 The words of Jesus Christ

And what point is this supposed to be making?

In Canon VI, a rite of worship called "Latria" was spoken of. This is not just an "ancient custom", it is thoroughly practiced today in every Mass.

Latria means adoration. Christ is adored.

After the bread has been supposedly "changed" into Christ by the priest, it is placed in a holder called the monstrance.
This is very rarely done after Mass. It is normally a separate time of worship of Christ. So again he demonstrates little knowledge of Catholic practices.

And before
this monstrance the Catholic must bow and worship (this act is called "genuflecting") the little wafer as God!
No we do not worship the host as God. Jesus is present in the consecrated host and we bow down and worship Jesus.

Sometimes they have processions where they solemnly march, as the congregation bows and offers praise and worship to this piece of bread!
The consecrated host is no longer bread. It is the body of Christ.

The Roman teaching that Jesus Christ is physically present in each morsel of bread creates many other doctrinal and practical problems.
No doctrinal problems

For instance, when the service is over, what happens to all those leftover wafers that have been "changed into Christ"? Do they change back into bread again when the priest goes home? I'm afraid not. For according to Canon IV of the Council of Trent, they stay flesh!

Why is that a problem?

And don't think that 400 year-old decree is just some dusty old manuscript in a museum case somewhere. It still is completely adhered to and passionately practiced.

Why would we think that the decrees of Trent are no longer valid?


As an example, here is a passage from an official Catholic home instruction book, copyrighted 1978:
"Jesus Christ does not cease to exist under the appearances of
bread and wine after the Mass is over. Furthermore, some hosts are
usually kept in all Catholic churches. In these hosts, Jesus is
physically and truly present, as long as the appearances of bread
remain. Catholics therefore have the praiseworthy practice of 'making
visits' to our Lord present in their churches to offer Him their thanks,
their adoration, to ask for help and forgiveness; in a word, to make
Him the center around which they live their daily lives.' ('1)
That is an incredible interpretation of how to make Jesus the center of
your daily life!

It seems to be a common practice of those wishing to criticise Catholic teaching to quote from some obscure document. Evidence of what the Catholic Church teaches should be taken from official documents such as Conciliar documents (such as from the Council of Trent), major Papal statements or from the Catechism.
However in this case I see nothing amiss.

Why though does Green seem surprised that Catholics would want to make Christ the centre of our lives?



WHEN DID THIS TEACHING BEGIN?
The teaching of transubstantiation does not date back to the Last Supper as most Catholics suppose.

Why would Catholics suppose that?

It was a controversial topic for many centuries before officially becoming an article of faith.
I think Green is confusing the belief in the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and the word transubstantiation.

(which means that it is essential to salvation according to Rome).
No it doesn’t mean that

The idea of a physical presence was vaguely held by some, such as Ambrose, but it was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, aBenedictine Monk, published a treatise openly advocating the doctrine.

Absolutely wrong by some seven centuries. We have very early evidence that the early Church believed in the real presence, that the bread and wine were changed into Christ's body and blood.

Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Epistle to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Ignatius of Antioch
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God…….”

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2; 7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1-20 [A.D. 148]).


Even then, for almost another four centuries, theological war was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D., it was officially defined and canonized as a dogma

Again this is wrong.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (d. about 1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this significant expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of faith of the Greek Emperor Michael Palæologus. The Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, cap. iv; can. ii) not only accepted as an inheritance of faith the truth contained in the idea, but authoritatively confirmed the "aptitude of the term" to express most strikingly the legitimately developed doctrinal concept.

Transubstantiation is not a dogma and was therefore not canonised as a dogma at either the Forth Lateran Council of the Council of Trent. It is a theological concept.

(A "Dogma" is a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed.

The New Catholic Dictionary defines a dogma as:
An opinion or belief authoritatively stated, a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted by the Apostles in the Scriptures or tradition, and proposed by the Church as an article of faith, to be accepted by the faithful.

It is equal in authority to the Bible)
What?

by Pope Innocent III.
What has Pope Innocent III to do with this?


The historian Tertullian tells us that when this doctrine first began to be taught in the Middle Ages, that the priests took great care that no crumb should fall lest the body of Jesus be hurt, or even eaten by a mouse or a dog! There were quite serious discussions as to what should be done if a person were to vomit after receiving the sacrament.

The only Tertullian I know of was the 2[sup]nd[/sup]/3[sup]rd[/sup] century Ecclesiastical writer, one of the fathers of the Church.

At the Council of Constance, it was argued that if a communicant spilled some of the blood on his beard, both beard and the man should be destroyed by burning!(2)

I don’t believe that. I’d like to see some real evidence of such a silly statement.

By the end of the eleventh century, lest someone should spill God's blood, some in the church began to hold back the cup from the people and finally in 1415, the Council of Constance officially denied the cup to laymen. Although today, by decree of the Vatican, churches may now offer the cup optionally to communicants.

According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, the practice of receiving the host only began quite early, many centuries before the Council of Constance. That Council only formalised what was by then the standard practice.

HOW ROME VIEWS THE BIBLE
Before we proceed to look at what the Bible has to say on this subject, it is important to understand the official Catholic view of the Scriptures.

That would be good, but we are not going to get it from Keith Green.

According to unquestionable decree, they hold that "Church tradition has equal authority with the Bible". This is not just a theological view, but it was made an article of faith by the same Council of Trent in 1545!

That is untrue and no references are given to prove such a false statement. I cannot find such a statement in the decrees of Trent concerning Scripture.

And again, this view is completely held by the Church today:

"The teachings of the Church will always be in keeping with the teachings of the Scripture and it is through the teaching of the Church that we understand more fully truths of sacred Scripture. To the Catholic Church belongs the final word in the understanding and meaning of the Holy Spirit in the words of the Bible."

Again no reference to where that quote comes from.

Moreover it is not addressing the issue Green raised. He claimed that "Church tradition has equal authority with the Bible"
The quote he gives is about interpretation of the Bible.



And explaining the premise used in interpreting the Bible:

"...usually the meaning of the Scriptures is sought out by those who
are specially trained for this purpose. And in their conclusions, they
know that no explanation of the Scriptures which contradicts the
truths constantly taught by the infallible Church can be true." (3)

Again no reference to where this quote comes from, though I would not disagree.

Any thinking person can see how such a mode of interpretation can be dangerously used to manipulate Scripture to mean absolutely anything at all! Who has not observed this of the various cults? The Moonies, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all back up their false teachings with "new revelations" and "inspired interpretations" of the Scriptures each claiming that the Holy Spirit revealed these new truths to their founders. One opens themselves to all kinds of deception when they judge the Bible by what their church or pastor teaches, instead of judging what their church or pastor teaches by the Bible!

Of course any individuals (like Keith Green) can twist and misuse scripture to fit their own beliefs.

That is why when Jesus founded His Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). That is why Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18); that it would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13); and why he promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)


CATHOLIC PROOF-TEXTS EXPLAINED
With this in mind, we will briefly discuss the two main passages of Scripture that the Roman Church uses while trying to show that Jesus Himself, taught transubstantiation.

John 6:54-55: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink."

Catholics are taught here, that Jesus is explaining how He is literally offering them His flesh and blood, so that they may have eternal life by physically eating Him. With just a little study of the whole passage (vs. 27-71), it is clear that Jesus was not talking about physical, but spiritual food and drink. Food is eaten to satisfy hunger. And in verse 35 Jesus says, "He who comes to Me shall never hunger". Now, Jesus is not promising eternal relief from physical hunger pains. He is, of course, speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation. And He promises to those who will "come to Him" that He will satisfy their hunger for these things forever therefore, to come to Him is to "eat"! (See also Matt. 5:6, 11:28, John 4:31-34.)

We drink also to satisfy thirst, and again in verse 35 Jesus tells us, "He that believes on Me shall never thirst." Therefore, to believe on Him is to "drink"! (See also John 4:13-14.) No one can say that here Jesus was establishing the eating and drinking of His literal flesh and blood to give eternal life, for in verse 63 He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Thus Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life! (See also Matt.4:4.) Matt. 26:26 and 28: "This is My body …this is My blood." Catholics base their whole religious system on their interpretation of these two
verses. They adamantly teach that right here, Jesus is pronouncing the first priestly blessing that mysteriously changes the bread and wine into His body and blood.

The absolute folly of such a conclusion is proved by this one observation: He was literally still there before, during, and after they had partaken of the bread and the cup! He was not changed into
some liquid and bread- His flesh was still on His bones, and His blood still in His veins. He had not vanished away to reappear in the form of a piece of bread or a cup of wine!

Let's look closer at His words. No one can deny that here we have figurative language. Jesus did not say "touto gignetai" ("this has become" or "is turned into"), but "touto esti" ("this signifies, represents" or "stands for") (the New Testament was written in Greek). It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic! And He wasn't the first in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really "blood". One time, David's friends heard him express a strong desire for water from the well of Bethlehem. In spite of extreme danger, these men broke through the enemy lines of the Philistines and brought the water to him. When David found out that these men had risked their lives in this way, he refused to drink the water, exclaiming, "Is not this the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" (II Sam. 23:17).

Throughout the gospels we find similar metaphorical language: Jesus referring to Himself as "the Door", "the Vine", "the Light", "the Root", "the Rock", "the Bright and Morning Star", as well as "the Bread". The passage is written with such common language that it is plain to any observant reader that the Lord's Supper was intended primarily as a memorial and in no sense a literal sacrifice. "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19).

Now we have finally come to the nub of this tract.

After many erroneous claims about what the Catholic Church teaches, errors in history and much emotive language we come to his personal ands fallible interpretations of scripture, hoping that the audience is with him enough to swallow his errors.

Also I love all the “obviously”, the “with a little study…. it is clear”, the “of course” and “thus Jesus makes clear” to gloss over the lack of rigour in his “proof”. It reminds me of when I was a school and couldn’t prove something so I just wrote “it follows that..”. I didn’t get away with such obvious obfuscation and neither should Keith Green.

This is too huge a topic to go into the detail needed to show Keith Green is wrong. I’m sure it has been covered many time on this board, for example

http://www.christian...king-communion/


TRUE PAGAN ORIGINS
Where did this teaching and practice really come from? Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion" (4) The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy.(5) In Egypt, priests would consecrate food cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris!(6) The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes
and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharistic rites.*(7) The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those 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.

Like so many attempts to show that Catholicism comes from pagan origins this has no logic to it. You have to show the actual migration of an idea not just that there were similarities. For example, “The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ”. So why the suggestion that the early Christians took this idea from the people of Mexico and Central America? You may say he didn’t suggest that. But the heading of this paragraph is “TRUE PAGAN ORIGINS” and it starts “Where did this teaching and practice really come from?” If he isn’t suggesting that the early Christians got this ideas from America then why raise it? There is only one reason - to imply that it did.

In Egypt, priests would consecrate food cakes which were supposed to become the flesh of Osiris!” It’s not true that they were supposed to change into the flesh of the deity. They were an offering to the corn god and were shaped like a man. They were nothing like the host used for the Eucharist which is round like the matzo used by Jesus at the Last Supper.

“The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and haoma drink closely parallel Catholic Eucharistic rites.”
Again not true.
The Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry (not Catholic) refutes on this claim about Mithas:

His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
The refutation is:
It took me some digging to discover the actual origin of this saying. Godwin says that the reference is from a "Persian Mithraic text," but does not give the dating of this text, nor does he say where it was found, nor is any documentation offered. I finally found something in Vermaseren [Verm.MSG, 103] -- the source of this saying is a medieval text; and the speaker is not Mithras, but Zarathustra!

Although Vermaseren suggested that this might be the formula that Justin referred to (but did not describe at all) as being part of the Mithraic "Eucharist," there is no evidence for the saying prior to this medieval text.

Critics try to give the rite some ancestry by claiming that it derives from an Iranian Mithraic ceremony using a psychadelic plant called Haoma, but they are clearly grasping at straws and adding speculations of meaning in order to make this rite seem similar to the Eucharist. This piece of "evidence" is far, far too late to be useful -- except as possible proof that Mithraism borrowed from Christianity! (Christianity of course was in Persia far earlier than this medieval text; see Martin Palmer's Jesus Sutras for details.)

Many of the practices and Christianity and the Jews can be found paganism, for example baptism, but that doesn’t make Jewish or Christian baptism a pagan rite.

SO WHY DO THEY TEACH IT?
Before concluding our first chronicle, the question needs to be asked,
"Why does the Roman Catholic Church need to have such a doctrine.
Why do they think that Jesus needs them to physically eat Him? That is what truly puzzled me as I read astounded through the catechism and doctrinal instruction books. But the answer to that question is not a pretty one. As I said before, the implications and practical conclusions of the teaching of transubstantiation are substantially worse than the doctrine itself and like a great web spun by an industrious spider, Rome's teachings spiral out from this central hub like the spokes of a wheel. In the following Catholic Chronicle we will look intently at the next direct result of transubstantiation in official Catholic systematic theology: "The Sacrifice of the Mass".

More emotive prose rather than reasoned argument: “Rome's teachings spiral out from this central hub like the spokes of a wheel”.

The reason the Catholic Church teaches it is because it is true; it is what Jesus taught, it is what the apostles taught, it is what scripture teaches; it is what the Church has believed and taught for 2,000 years.
 

jerzy

New Member
Sep 7, 2012
113
0
0
These cut and paste jobs are a “no effort” way that Protestants use to attack Catholics.

So you don't like what your "papa" said.

What about this one:

How there was a ghastly trial once of a dead man by a live man, and both popes.

Stephen VI (VII) exhumed Formosus after 8 month of death, tried for perjury and other offences, found guilty, invalidated his appointment as pope, passed sentence, buried, dug out and thrown into river Tiber.


Here leys berried Catholic Peter’s succession and the papal infallibility but the Catholic lie continues thanks to their mastery in brain washing.

Did you hear this before?

"Kill them all"?

Any idea who might have said it?

What about cut/copy of this?

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits...

Or this one:

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Or this one?

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

No wonder why you prefer talking about talking instead of facing God's word and the facts about Catholics.