Isn't the Eucharist just symbolic, since Jesus could only sacrifice himself once?

By November 11, 2014 17 Comments

Full Question

One of the things that sets Catholics apart from other denominations is Communion. Since the followers of Christ were Jews and consuming blood was an abomination, why would they believe they were ingesting the actual blood of Christ and bring condemnation upon themselves? Also, wouldn’t the wafer, if it became the literal body of Christ, be an abomination to Catholics since cannibalism is a sin? Jesus was offered as a sacrifice for sin once upon the cross, and there is no more need of a sacrifice. Communion has been understood as being symbolic, or else it would have never been accepted by the disciples. The blood shed on the cross is the last time the blood of Christ flowed. His body was last on earth the day he ascended into heaven. To say the juice and wafer becomes the literal blood and body of Christ is saying he is sacrificed anew, which is an impossibility.


First of all, up to the 16th century virtually all Christians believed that the bread and wine truly becomes the body and blood of Christ. That’s a long time. The largest and oldest Christian Church still does—as do the Orthodox churches. So there has to be something credible about it.
It is true that for the Jews, consuming blood was an abomination. Scripture tells us that many of the disciples of Jesus could not accept this and from that point on did not follow him (Jn 6:66), but not all of them. “Then Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘What about you, do you want to go away too?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe; we know that you are the Holy One of God’” (Jn 6:67-69). These disciples did accept what he said—not because they understood, but because they believed in him.
If Jesus were merely speaking symbolically, he could easily have called the other disciples back and explained that he wasn’t speaking literally. He did not. Jesus, we believe, is God. It boggles the mind that God loves his creatures so much that he became one of them, and then allowed them to torture him and put him to death for their benefit. The moment in which he died covers every person who lived on this earth before Good Friday and everyone who was to live after it. It transcends time.
The Church and everything about it is incarnational because Jesus became incarnate. He used water and spittle and bread and wine and his own body and blood to minister to those who needed him. Since Jesus is God, if he said that the bread and wine becomes his body and blood, then those who acknowledge his divinity should have no difficulty believing it to be true because, like the Twelve, they believe in him. It is certainly no more extraordinary than his Incarnation!
Since the moment of his death transcends time, to celebrate it in time is not to create another Passion and death; it is to worship him in that very Passion here and now in the concrete manner of his devising. See: The Sacrifice of the Mass.


  • John 1:14 says,”And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”–The FLESH that we Christians eat is the WORD of God that spiritually nourishes us and gives us eternal life. Eating a cracker or wafer will not do that. It goes into your mouth as a wafer, it taste like a wafer and there it remains a wafer. The blood we drink is Christ’s blood of salvation that is consumed each time someone is “saved”.

  • Is that so, Tony Stevenson? Then how come the Apostles and all those who were discipled by and followed them never taught such a thing? How come you don’t find that idea in any literature of the first 1500 years of Christianity and what you find instead, in both the Orthodox and Catholic churches is century after century of defining the Eucharist as the very Body and Blood of Christ?
    How the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ remains a mystery, but that it does become such is a fact. That your taste buds only discern bread and wine does not change the facts, nor what the Church taught for 1500 years. The fact is that what you have just said is an Anabaptist heresy that didn’t show up until the 16th century.
    Here — feast on this: (From the book THE DANCE OF ISAIAH by Patrick Seamus O’Hara, KINGS OF LUIGHNE PUBLISHING 2006)
    This wonderful new life within us needs to be fed. Another familial term used in the Bible is that of babies. As a baby will die if left unfed, so our souls will die in the sense of never maturing on earth unless we receive the Bread of Life. Jesus said that He is the true bread come down from heaven. There is a new life within, made in the image of God.
    This is not a fantasy. This life of the new man within has energy and force to it. It needs to be fed. You would not feed your child with readings from a cookbook. Knowing about the preparation of meals may satisfy some intellectual hunger, but it will not feed the body, which needs food to enter into it, nourish it, and give it life energy. Readings from the Bible will give us instruction and guidance, but they do not feed the divine life force which lives inside us. Our “new man” needs that which he can feed upon – the true Bread of Life. When Jesus enters my body through the Eucharist, He brings to me and shares with me the life force of His divine nature, so that I am fed and renewed.
    We eat that which is living. Our food has life in it. This is why mankind cannot sustain life by eating inanimate objects. The life energy of what we eat is transferred to us so that we live and grow. When I take Jesus into my body, I take in Life which shares Himself with me so that I become a partaker of Life. Since the life I am receiving is the divine nature itself, the reception of the Eucharist is intended to make me become more and more like Jesus by the joining of my nature to His. This is a real ontological change, not a legal declaration of “imputed righteousness.”
    What I find odd is the denial of Christian history by Calvinists. Here are two famous quotes which go back to the very first Christians, showing that they regarded the Eucharist as truly being the Body and Blood of Christ:
    “They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.”
    Justin Martyr clearly shows that from the beginning, the Church held that not only was the Eucharist the Flesh and Blood of Christ, it also wasn’t bread and wine after the consecration. Here is Chapter 66 of his First Apology:
    “And this food is called among us [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
    So once a certain prayer of His word is said, the bread and wine cease to be common bread and wine, and become spiritual Bread and Wine: namely, “the Flesh and Blood of that Jesus Who was made Flesh.” The “prayer of His word” is the prayer of consecration, as Justin explains, quoting Christ at the Last Supper. What’s translated there as “transmutation” is incredible. The actual phrase is “kata metabolen,” and that metabolen is the root word of our word “metabolize.” What Justin is actually saying is that by the Eucharist, our own body and blood is nourish and metabolized by Christ. Just as when we eat bread and drink wine, we turn the elements into our body through metabolism, when we eat the Eucharist, Christ metabolizes us (so to speak) into His Body. This is very much consistent with the view scripture presents in places like 1 Corinthians 10:17.

  • Mr. Hara, keep in mind the scriptures that I quoted comes from the Holy Bible. It is our only road map to salvation. No commentary from some mortal’s literary work can replace it. What I said has always been taught from the Apostles until now by the Apostolic movement. You referred to a cookbook as not being able to feed a hungry man. Man does not get “spiritual” nourishment by physically eating the New Testament of the Holy Bible but by reading it, believing it and obeying God’s Word, thus consuming the flesh of Jesus which is the “Word” (John 1:14). You say that man eats that which is living. Hebrews 4:12 says that God’s word is “alive”. Without consuming God’s Word, you can not “spiritually grow. You keep referring to the Church ( I’m assuming you mean the R. C. Church) as you write your post. Need I remind you that the R.C.C. was not founded until about 313 A.D. with Constantine at its head. First pope was Leo I (440-461 A.D.). The Apostles never taught the Eucharist or the Lord’s supper or any form of literal communion. 1Cor. 11:17-20–17 Now in this that I declare unto you “I praise you not”, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
    18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
    19 For there must be also “heresies (false teachings) among you”, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
    20 When ye come together therefore into one place, THIS IS NOT TO EAT THE LORD’S SUPPER. These scriptures (17-20) are overlooked by most people. Now those that believe in literal communion twist those scriptures to try in justifying their false practices. Remember,when studying God’s Word, you need only the Holy Bible (KJV). If you are serious about salvation, you will find it there. If you love the ways of the world (drinking, lying, cheating, adultery, cursing & ect.) then, you will not. The Bible says, that the Word is hid from them that are lost.

    • If the Sacred Scriptures are the “only road map to salvation,” then how did the first four hundred years of Christians obtain salvation without a Bible and especially without a standardized and canonical New Testament? The idea that the Bible is a “living and breathing word” began with the Reformers. Such an idea was unknown prior to that, and the Church for 1500 years understood that the Sacraments were the means of grace by which the soul grew and became Christ-like.
      What you said is not what the Apostles taught and I posted two quotes from the Early Fathers to show you this. Where do you think that these men learned these things from if not from the Apostles? What you have given me, the idea that Jesus’ Flesh is really the Word of God, is a fond Protestant invention which comes from twisting the clear meaning of John 6:53. That meaning was so clear to those listening to Jesus that they turned away and followed Him no more, and nowhere do we see Him racing after them to say “Wait, guys! You don’t understand. Let me explain the meaning of what I just said.” No, He said it and it stood.
      Your grasp of Christian history is equally ridiculous. The Church was called “katholicos” (catholic, or universal) by the second century, not the fourth. The first pope was not Leo either. We have a complete list of the popes who followed Peter. Do some reading, please, so that you won’t come across as completely ignorant.
      What you believe is an interpretation of the Scriptures which was not known for 1500 years. If you wish to believe that and continue in your deception, no one will stop you, but whenever I see such nonsense, I am going to call it out. You don’t know what you are talking about, and there are literally hundreds of X-Protestants like myself who know that all these ideas you put forth are a large slice of bologna, started by the Reformers as lies against the Church. We converts know this because we, too, once believed in these Protestant lies and fairy tales and had to study our way into the Church and out of our ignorance.
      BTW — Just for grins and giggles, show me where the Bible says that the Christian faith will be based on a book alone. Then show me where Jesus instructed His disciples to write a book and live the Christian life only by that book. Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down? How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?
      On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?
      Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?) How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired? How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first- century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us as Scripture 2000 years later? Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?
      Just a few questions for you to answer.

    • Silvano says:

      Mr. Tony, your line, and I quote: “Mr. Hara, keep in mind the scriptures that I quoted comes from the Holy Bible. It is our only road map to salvation.” tells me that you are a protestant child. Enough said. Did you notice that ALL protestants do not have the Holy Mass, the purest sacrifice? No, because God does not want them to enjoy His Gift, His TRUE flesh and blood, because ALL the protestants have rejected Jesus and thus God the Father as well. (Luke 10:16)
      … till they return to be one with Jesus, in His Holy Body, which is the Catholic Church, they are not going to receive Him….ohhh…..Jesus is waiting, He wants you, but if you do not go back to Him, He is going to respect your free will (His gift) no matter what.

  • Mr. Hara, You have been wrongly calling me a Protestant, I am an Apostolic which is about as rare as chicken’s teeth. You are right, the Protestants do teach some lies but to flee back to the mother of those Protestants does not make sense. The road map to salvation for early Christians was the same letters and papers that was eventually called the Holy Bible and was accepted by your church in the beginning. The Bible itself ( the bindings & paper) are not “living” but the actual Words are for they are God. John 1:1-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD.- As for as the sacraments making you “Christ-like”, which of the seven are you speaking of. Here is what one of the saints of your church had to say on that subject. Acts 2:38- Then Peter said unto them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. Did you notice, Paul did not say Father, Son and the Holy Ghost in that baptismal command? What I say the Apostles taught, well,I quoted their very words and you rebutted with quotes from Patrick O’Hara and Justin Martyr. It might as well have been quotes from Billy Graham which are not the inspired Words of God. As for as God’s Word being the flesh of Jesus, read John 1:14 KJV very slowly. It says,”And THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH……” Those are not my words, they are the inspired Word of God. The reason some of the people turned away and followed Jesus no more was that they thought that he wanted them to eat him alive. If you read a little farther in John chapter 6 to verse 63 you will see another clue to the makeup of Jesus’s flesh. John 6:63 says,It is the spirit that quickeneth (that makes life); the FLESH profiteth (fit for) nothing: the WORDS that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life”. Jesus is saying that it is his Words that must be consumed for eternal life. As for as church history I was referring to the Roman Catholic Church and it was founded by Roman Emperor Constantine in about the year of 313 A.D. which has evolved into something different than the early Apostolic church. Right? As for what I believe, it is not an interpretation of the scriptures, the scriptures are not open to interpretation (mabe parables, then must be done in context ). 2 Peter 1:20-21 says,-20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.- You ask several questions concerning the authentication of the Bible. All I can say without writing two or three books to explain is we have the choice to read and believe any book we want but the Bible is the only book that you can find God’s Plan of salvation explained by HIS inspired Words, between its covers. If you want to risk your soul reading and believing some other book, feel free to do so. If you are a true Christian, common sense will prevail. Rev. 22:18-19 says,-18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    19 And if any man shall TAKE AWAY from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.-As for the scriptures being the “inspired” Word of God, 2 Tim. 3:16 says,”All scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” As for as the Bible being the sole authority on faith and morals, keep in mind the goal of God’s Word is to save our soul even though it does contain goods lessons on faith and morals. There are thousands of books out there on faith and morals but none of them will properly instruct you on salvation. I have answered most if not all your question, not with opinions but with scriptures of God’s Words, nothing that modern man writes are of interest to me because they are opinions. Now a few questions for you. Please use Bible (KJV) references in you answers. -Why do you bow down before statues and pray when the Bible says not to? Why do you pray to Mary as if to God when the Bible says we have only one mediator which is Jesus? Why do you call priest Fathers when the Bible says not to? Where is the Catholic purgatory described in the Bible? Why do you baptize using the words Father, Son & Holy Spirit when the Bible says in Acts 2:38 to baptize in the name of Jesus and give one example of a baptism in the Bible using your formula? Why do you sprinkle in baptism when the only examples in the Bible are immersion? I will be surprised if you try to answer these.

  • I just sit here shaking my head in wonder. You have the nerve to say that “the Bible is not interpreted” and then you right about interpreting the words of Jesus to fit your desired understanding. If you believe that the Bible needs no interpretation, then you MUST believe that you MUST eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood. That is what the plain, uninterpreted words of scripture say, and your attempt to throw John 6: 63 into the mix and change the plain and clear meaning is INTERPRETATION.
    Why can’t you see that? Are you really that blind to what you are doing here?
    Your insistence on “baptizing in the name of Jesus only” seems to identify you as some sort of Arian, possibly a Oneness Pentecostal. Did you forget about Matthew 28: 19-20, where the disciples are commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or is this another instance where you get to ignore the plain, clear, and uninterpreted words of Scripture and instead throw in your personal interpretation of what that phrase “really means.”
    As for your questions, I would turn the tables on you and ask you where it says not to “bow down and pray.” I put the words bow down pray in a search engine for the KJV version of Blue Letter Bible online and it came back as NOTHING. So since you insist upon literal word for word obedience, why do you use a phrase not found in the Scriptures?
    There is a verse (a couple, actually) which use just the words “bow down.”
    Lev 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.
    Well, what is an idol? Dictionary definition is “an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.” So there you have it. The verses in question are saying not to make an image of the invisible and unknowable God. He is not knowable to human senses, especially by the means of making some dumb elephant like they do in India and then calling it “god.” That’s not what we are doing.
    Of course, my Byzantine Catholic Church doesn’t even have statues in it. We use icons to represent the presence of the saints and the many historical events in the Bible, such as the Nativity and the Baptism and the Transfiguration. Neither we, nor the Roman church, which does use statues, in any way says that these things are a representation of the invisible God. If you are going to read the Scriptures, try to figure out what the actual issue behind a verse is rather than taking it at face value and then assigning a meaning to it. That’s what Fundamentalists do with Matthew 24, making it speak of some future “tribulation and rapture of the Church” when it in fact is speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
    Why did Paul call himself “father” and disobey the words of scripture? Did Paul somehow not get the memo from the Holy Spirit not to use such language?
    One last thing — my Byzantine Catholic Church, along with the Melkites and several other Eastern Catholics, all baptize by IMMERSION. We are fully Catholic and we immerse.
    And the fact that you don’t know this shows that you need to stop reading trash pamphlets about the Catholic Church and do some personal research on it. Your ignorance is typical of most non-Catholics (in deference to your wishes, I will not call you Protestant) who think they know
    all about the Church and what they really know could be put in a thimble and there would still be room for a Mack truck.
    And you didn’t answer one of my questions either.

  • Mr. Hara, I see that you are displeased with the messenger and not the message? I must apologize for leaving one word out when I said the Bible was not open to interpretation. I should have said “not open to PRIVATE interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20-21) like the scripture says. The Bible needs no interpretation because, if you read it in its entirety, it will expose all the facts to you that will enable you to understand without interpretation. Like the Bread of Life. God tells us what the Bread is and also what the blood is, if we read far enough in the scriptures. When there is an absence of facts then one must interpret but this is not the case with the Bible. You said that I interpreted when I said Jesus’s flesh was the Word of God. Not so, John 1:1 said that.Do you deny that we are spiritual feed by the Word of God? As for as ” insisting on Baptizing in Jesus’s name,” you totally ignored what Peter said in Acts 2:38. You do believe that Peter does know what he is talking about, don’t you? Now, I was hoping that you would bring up Matthew 28:19-20. If you have a good command of the English language (and you do?) then you know the meaning of the phrase “IN THE NAME OF.” It does not mean “to say these words” (Father, Son & Holy Ghost). The command calls for a NAME (singular) and the three words are not a singular name. But Jesus is a singular name that means all three (1 John 5:7). Do you deny praying to others than God including Mary and/or her statue and graven images? You are giving your private interpretation of Lev. 26:1. It says nothing about an unknown god. Anything that you pray to and worship is a god. Do you pray to Mary? Do you worship her?Do you pray to icons? As for as your reference to Paul calling himself father, 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 (KJV) it says,
    14 “I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
    15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.”–(I guess this was the passage that you were refering to)– Have you heard of the term “born-again Christian”? Well, this is what Paul was speaking of. He said he loved them like sons and he instructed them in God’s Word that enabled them to be Spiritually reborn thus, figuratively speaking, he was their father, small f. I am glad to hear that you immerse in Baptism, now if you get the name right, you will see some real results. I do have some first hand experience with Catholics, I lived on an island (Dominica) for 7 years, had about 50 or so Catholic friends that I knew by first name, I attend church with them many times though I was Apostolic. I knew the priest and helped them build a retirement home for the older priest just below my home at Rosalie. If you dispute what I say, please give scripture references.

  • QUOTE: “The Bible needs no interpretation because, if you read it in its entirety, it will expose all the facts to you that will enable you to understand without interpretation.”
    If this was true, there would not be hundreds of denominations and differing beliefs. I would say this: who has the authority to interpret the Bible (rather than private interpretation) and from where did they get that authority?
    Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
    Notice to whom this promise is made. It is not a generic promise in which it is said that all believers in Christ will come to know the truth. It is given to “you.” Who is this “you?” The Apostles gathered there in the Upper Room. The promise is to THEM. Far, far too many people try to claim this promise to themselves without any reason or authority to do so.
    Furthermore, the Bible itself declares where the truth is to be found:
    1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
    It is the house of God, the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth. This is why all the doctrines of orthodox belief, such as the Trinity, the natures of Christ, the circumcision issue, etc. were settled by the Church, not by the writings or statements of individual men.
    And isn’t this right to avoid confusion? Look at the confusion in Christianity. Thousands of churches, hundreds of doctrines. This is chaos, and God is not the author of chaos.
    Finally, how did the first four centuries of Christians know what they needed to know about salvation without a canon of scripture? They had to depend upon the traditions of the Church (i.e., the way that doctrine and praxis was taught from person to person throughout the ages). In other words, when someone came along in the fourth century and said that Jesus was not God, one in substance with the Father, but a created being (and taught this from scripture alone), the Church went back through the centuries and said “From day one, handed down from disciple to disciple, such a thing was never taught, either by the Apostles or their disciples.” That is the importance of tradition.
    For folks like you (and me, when I was a Protestant) to say that we alone found the truth after centuries of error certainly dishonors these men, a great many of whom died rather than deny Christ. For us to say that we alone have found the whole truth, 2000 years later, is to say that these men did not care about the truth, did not fight for it, were not led by the Spirit of God (oh, but we are and we are sure of it!) and were, to say the least, scoundrels. it is to say that the consensus of the Church was not led by the Holy Spirit.
    I’m sorry, Tony, but going out on your own, you can make the Bible say anything you wish it to say. It takes humility to be willing to admit that maybe I’m not the most important person in the universe when it comes to understanding the scriptures and maybe — just maybe — God chose someone else other than “I” to be the infallible keeper of the truth. This is what all non-Catholics cannot bring themselves to say or admit.

    • penfire says:

      Jesus DID later explain His Words to His disciples: John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
      61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
      62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
      63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
      64 But there are some of you that believe not.

  • Edward, you just answered your own question. The reason that there are so many different denominations and beliefs is they (the denominations) are interpreting the scriptures contrary to God’s Word. Only parables and like scriptures are to be interpreted by the guidance of the Holy Ghost by true born-again Christians. Most if not all things that Jesus said to the Apostles applies to all Christians. If the promise of the Holy Ghost in John 16:13 was reserved for the Apostles only, why (please answer this one) did God give Cornelius and other Gentiles the Holy Ghost in Acts 10:30-45? Also, why does Paul in Acts 2:38-39 promises the Holy Ghost, after repenting and baptism in Jesus name, to the people, their sons and those far away? In 1 Tim.3:15 it says, “…………….in the house of God, which is the church (little c ) of the living God,…” Are churches of all denominations “the house of God, the church of the living God”? I think not. Only time will tell whether your church or my church meets that qualification. So no man can boast that his church has a monopoly on the truth. Now, I see that you are saying the Catholic does have a monopoly on “the truth”. Do think that a church that is guilty of mass tortures and murders during three Inquisitions, and has had at least eight corrupt popes guilty of everything from adultery to murder, and has had a massive sex scandal involving young boys and priest has a monopoly on “truth”. You say God is not the author of chaos. Wouldn’t you say what I just described is massive chaos? Remember, the Holy Ghost is to guide you into all truth.That previous statements was not meant to offend you but it is the truth and you know that it is. Tradition is the way churches explain away their doctrine that does not agree with God’s written word. Before a proper Bible was compiled, the written works of the Apostles was available to the early Christians for guidance in matters of salvation & ect. I will be the first to say that I do not know everything about the Bible. But God has revealed some important things to me and being an ambassador of God (according to scriptures) I am obligated to represent him to you as long as you permit me to do so, even though I maybe reluctant to do so. I am not the keeper of the truth. That is the duty of God and his written Word.

  • Mario Simonelli says:

    We celebrate the Lord’s Supper to remember that the Lord died for our sins, making the partaking of the elements “the bread and the wine” very special for all Christians. But we should also celebrate the Supper as the introduction of the new covenant. For we read in Luke 22:19-20: “And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying. ‘This is My body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’ And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”’
    What does this new covenant in His blood mean?
    This new covenant was foretold through the prophet Jeremiah. However, we will read it from Hebrews 8:7-13: “For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them He says, behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord.”
    ‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days, says the Lord; I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother, saying, know the Lord, for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.’ When He said, a new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”
    The main feature of this new covenant described by the above scripture is that it will be internalised, in other words it will be made part of our character. What we need to know is the mechanism through which the law, or character of God, will be internalised in our heart. We will find the answer in the following scriptures; for in John 6:53-64 we read: “Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 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. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father is in Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me in him. This is the bread, which came down out of heaven; not as the father ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever.’ These things He said in the synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum.”
    “Therefore, many of his disciples, when they heard this said, ‘This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?’ But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, ‘Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before? It is the spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the WORDS that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.’”
    “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, ‘For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him TO UNDERSTAND from the Father.”’
    Those who truly heard what He said, understood and believed that unpalatable statement, for we read in John 8:31-36: “Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ‘If you abide in My words, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’ They answered Him, ‘We are Abraham’s offspring, and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how it is that You say, you shall become free?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. And the slave does not remain in the house forever, the son does remain forever. If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.”’
    The Apostle Paul, using plain language, explains to us the sins that we should be free from, for we read in 1Corinthians 6:9-11: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”
    If you are still struggling to understand the intended meaning of the Lord’s Supper, the following explanation should clear all misunderstandings. We all know that the food that we eat goes in the stomach and is digested to provide nourishment, strength and life to our physical body. Even so, the word of God that we eat, swallow, or believe becomes nourishment in shaping our character, having become part of the life of our conscience; consequently we live our life according to the words that our soul has eaten, swallowed, or believed. Even in our every day life when we hear a far-fetched story we use the expression that says, “Do you expect me to swallow that?” So “eat, swallow and believe,” are all saying the same thing.
    Let us remember that we should eat, swallow, or believe the Word of God to gain its wisdom, without neglecting to live the life that that Word suggests, that is to say, repent; for if we have all the mental wisdom of the word but do not repent, that wisdom has become useless. We read in James 1:22-24: “But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer; he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.” In other words, he returns to live through his natural fleshly self, at best deluding himself in the ambiguity of religion.
    We should also be aware, that the new covenant contains serious ramifications for those who have been enlightened, for we read in Hebrews 10:26-29: “For if we go on sinning wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversary. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the life of the covenant by which he was sanctified, thus he has insulted the Spirit of grace?”
    Hence, after eating the Word of the Lord to gain its wisdom, we must also drink the cup of the Lord. Because drinking from the cup of the Lord means to live the life of the Lord. Jesus was also made to drink from a cup, for we read in Luke 22:42: “Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done.”
    It is obvious that to fully understand the parables one must dig beyond the face value of the message because if we have the light of Godliness, the Spirit will give us understanding while we meditate on the word that has been written, as the following scripture will clearly demonstrate as we read in 1 Corinthians 10:14-17: “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. Is not the cup of blessing, which we partake a sharing in the Life of Christ? Is not the bread, which we break a sharing in the Word of Christ? Since there is one Word we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one Word”.
    The inserted words in the above scriptures makes its rendering easier to understand, because, as you can see, the scripture is only describing normal human behaviour when people partake of the same things. In other words, those who share the same beliefs are naturally drawn together to form a body of people with one common purpose in mind. Like a political party that has a written constitution highlighting the common goals and aspirations of that party, the Jews have the Old Testament; the Muslims have the Koran that holds them together; the Buddhists have some other book, and so on and so forth. But Christians who are growing and are living Christ’s life are a beacon of light for all, because we have the bread of life, the Word of God.
    Therefore we should feast on the bread of God by constant meditation to facilitate the digestion process and at the same time share the revelations of the Word with our brothers to extract all wisdom that it contains; but most of all we should drink the life, which the Word teaches: hence behaving in a godly fashion and doing good works, through which, at the appointed time God will reveal His Son in us.
    And with that heavenly hope in mind, let us assemble to eat and drink together the symbols of the “body” Word and the “blood” Life of our God.
    Glory to God

  • Lorry says:

    Anyone who does not understand the Holy Eucharist and it being Truly the Body and Blood of our Lord, does not understand the Passover.The Fourth Cup by Dr. Scott Hahn (you can Google and listen to it on YouTube) and Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Dr. Brant Pitre (YouTube, too!) , listen to these two first, then see if you don’t better understand the Holy Eucharist.

    • Mario Simonelli says:

      Lorry, I believed what you believe. The following is what I experienced: one Sunday in late 1979 I went early in the morning to mass to take the eucharist because I had promised to my wife to visit a charismatic group, it was a purely visit of curiosity but I wanted the Lord to know that I wasn’t abandoning His Church, (by the way, I had attended protestant churches before at funerals and weddings, but never for the sermon.) After the sermon the preacher asked the congregation if there was anyone that wanted to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In hearing those words my belly steared-up urging that I should go forward; I resisted the urge for 5 – 10 seconds and then I said “I do not need to go out Lord, I received you this morning” With those words the urge stopped, and I found myself having a vision, which to this day I have yet to fully comprehend. In the vision I flew with the Lord by my side across the city, and flew over the Catholic Church, in front of the Baptist Church, and in the front yard of the state school hall, A few days after I felt a hunger to read the NT, 6 to 9 month later the Lord opened my mind to understand the scriptures. Now we are having a conversation about believing something which we can only speculate about its veracity.
      One thing I know for certain, in Matthew 4:4 Jesus said “It is written, man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”

      • As a former Protestant for 25 years, and a very dedicated one against the “errors of the papists,” I can only shake my head at people who decide to leave the Church for Protestantism.
        It’s like throwing away a Mercedes Benz to own a Dodge Dart.

        • Mario Simonelli says:

          Edward, I did not leave the church for protestantism; I was blessed with His knowledge because I believed in the miracle of the eucharist. Did the Jews who believed in Him made a mistake? Should I ignore His teaching? There is no Christian Church in the world that has not been contaminated by mens speculations born by the tares disseminated in the Holy Scriptures, like the following. The most popular verses of scripture in the New Testament without doubt belong to the Lord’s Prayer; and most of us have memorised those verses from childhood. But young and old alike have been unaware of the lie that it contains, for in Matthew 6:13 part of it reads: “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” This verse implies that God leads us into temptation, and that there’s the need to ask Him not to do that, but to deliver us from evil.
          But why should we ask Him that, when we all know or should know that the evil of temptation is not in God’s character? For we read in Romans 2:4: “Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance.”
          And we read in James 1:13: “Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.” And 2Peter 2:9 has no ambiguity of the true work of the Lord for we read: “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under darkness for the Day of judgment.”
          So I am only putting the record straight, in harmony with God’s true character, in accordance with His true scripture by partly restoring Matthew 6:13, to read: “And lead us into repentance, and deliver us from evil.”
          The above verse now reflects the true work and character of our God. After all, we are talking about our Heavenly Father, therefore, we should know what He does and doesn’t do. I am sure that an evil man, an enemy of Christ, has cleverly inserted those lies in there so they would falsely assume the power of the Sacred Word and prevent us from truly knowing and trusting our God and Father.

  • Mario Simonelli says:

    Now Lorry, about my given understanding of the New Testament, here is two examples from my book “The Way God Told It.”
    We all know, or should know, that God has revealed His Son, and in His Son, He has revealed Himself. If we truly believe that, we should not accept the existence of unfathomable mysteries, or believe captivating speculations, which are nothing more than fairytales, promoted by the imagination and ignorance of man. The scriptures encourage us to seek the truth and depths of God for we read in 1Corinthians 2:9-10: “But just as it is written. Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him. For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.”
    However, the presence of the divine character has always been within the hearts of those who have the wisdom to fear God, for in Mark 4:24-25: “Jesus was saying to them, ‘Take care what you listen to. By your standard OF GODLINESS it shall be measured to you; and more shall be given you beside. For whoever has, to him shall more be given; and whoever does not have, even what GOOD he has shall be taken away from him.’”
    (the above two verses without the inserted words in block letters would make no sense at all; check it out on your bible)
    In the work of Bible translation dedicated scholars have unavoidably being influenced by their traditions and the consuming passion for knowledge of antique languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but they have failed to hear the still and gentle voice of the Spirit of Christ. Those scholars, deafened by their own fleshly wisdom and zealous to correctly translate the written word to the letter, have unknowingly left undisturbed the lies and the sequential confusion disseminated in the New Testament.
    Yes…it is difficult to believe that there are untruths in the New Testament, especially after centuries of trusting those who have handed them down to us and those who teach us, whose devotion and sincerity is often beyond question. We need to realise however that the written word was entirely entrusted to men for safekeeping. So how can we be certain that Christ’s enemy has never put his hands on the original Scriptures? Do we know the character of who copied and compiled them into a book, or how safe they were?
    The following example will clearly demonstrate to you that sequential confusion of Scripture has also been introduced in some epistles. In John 20-23 we read: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
    This commission that the Lord has given to the disciples is exercised by the Catholic, the Orthodox Church and a few others denominations, but most of them do not do that. Maybe these denominations do not forgive sins because of the lack of demonstrating examples in the epistles? We all know that we have to forgive those who sin against us: the Lord’s Prayer is very clear on the matter. But who forgives those who sin against their own conscience and the body of Christ?
    I am certain that in 2Corinthians between Chapter 1:16 and Chapter 2:11 there is a hidden example of the administration of this important sacrament, ministered by Paul to the Corinthians. The problem in recognising it as such lays in the undeniable fact that part of the explanation of this sacrament has been moved from its original place so that its significant content would appear to be addressing something else. I pray you therefore follow me with patience and I am certain you will see.
    If we read 2Corinthians 1:16 followed by verse 23, we realise that those verses are united by the line of thought of the subject (the visit) that Paul is clarifying to them. This line of thought continues, slowly changing into another subject, but it is uninterrupted until Chapter 2:11. If we then go back to chapter 1:17 and read until verse 22 we find that the line of thought of Paul and the new subject (forgiven sin) also continues uninterrupted and Paul’s ministry becomes clear as well. Arranging and reading these scriptures in that order, the truth will become obvious, for these last six verses (17-22) are not united to the promise of Paul to visit them, but they are united to the promise of God to forgive sins through the anointed disciples.
    The verses in question have been written below in the explained above order.
    We read in 2Corinthians 1:16: “That is to pass your way into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come to you, and by you to be helped on my journey to Judea.
    (1:23.) But I call God as witness to my soul, that to spare you I come no more to Corinth. Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm. But I determine this for my own sake that I would not come to you in sorrow again. For if I cause you sorrow, who then makes me glad but the one whom I made sorrowful? And this is the very thing I wrote you, lest, when I come, I should have sorrow from those who ought to make me rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy would be the joy of you all. For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears; not that you should be made sorrowful, but that you might know the love which I have especially for you. But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not to me, but in some degree in order not to say too much to all of you. Sufficient for such a one is this punishment, which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, lest somehow such a one be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him. For to this end also I wrote that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. But whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, ……….(the phase that was in this space is a lie), ……….I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ, in order that no advantage be taken of us by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his schemes.
    (1:17.) Therefore, I was not vacillating when I intended to do this, was I? Or that which I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yes, yes and no, no at the same time? But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no. For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us, by me and Silvanus and Timothy, was not yes and no, but is yes in Him. For as many as may be the promises of God, in Him they are yes; wherefore also by Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us. Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.”
    As you can see, these last six verses are too deep in significance to be addressing a simple promise of Paul to visit them. But, in these last six verses Paul is declaring to them that his forgiveness is solid, because it is not according to the flesh, but the yes resided on the promise of God, and like all other promises the yes is in Christ. Paul’s authority is a gift of an anointing from God.

Leave a Reply Brethren !