|
|
|
|
Adoring and worshipping Jesus AS the Eucharist p.2 Catholic idolatry is made clear by Peter Kreeft’s inane statements showing his misunderstanding the words of Jesus. Catholics refuse to speak the gospel for people to be saved by faith because they have not accepted the gospel to be saved by faith; instead they have a eucharist (see our video) Kreeft was a Dutch Reformed Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism and is considered by many to be a leading apologist of the Catholic faith. Kreeft believes in the teaching of transubstantiation, the Eucharist being real Presence of Christ will win back Protestants. This evangelistic tool will bring back the separated brethren to Catholicism, to their Mother Church. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a magnet drawing lost sheep home and keeping would-be strays from the deathly snows outside. ( The Sacraments Peter Kreeft From Fundamentals of the Faith)Peter Kreeft of Boston College has stated “through the Mass, the entire universe is being transformed into one giant Cosmic Eucharistic Christ” (Peter Kreeft, Ecumenical Jihad (Ignatius Press, 1996), 158. He also states “everyone will be united in the Eucharist and Mary. Ibid 144-45. ) Kreeft is a sacramentalism in a truest Catholic sense, he is part of the new evangelization method being used. “No Catholic dogma is so distinctive and so apparently anti-ecumenical as the dogma of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Yet this dogma may be the greatest cause of ecumenism and eventual reunion. Peter Kreeft, Ecumenical Jihad ( San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1996), p.145 The Sacraments Peter Kreeft From Fundamentals of the FaithThe real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a magnet drawing lost sheep home and keeping would-be strays from the deathly snows outside. It has ceased to scandalize me, though it has not ceased to
amaze me, that Almighty God suffers me to touch him, move him and eat him!
Imagine! When I move my hand to my mouth with the Host, I move God through
space. When I put him here, he is here. When I put him there, he is there. The
Prime Mover lets me move him where I will. It is as amazing as the Incarnation
itself, for it is the Incarnation, the continuation of the Incarnation. To Protestants, sacraments must be one of two things: either mere symbols, reminders, like words; or else real magic. And the Catholic definition of a sacrament — a visible sign instituted by Christ to give grace, a sign that really effects what it symbolizes — sounds like magic. Both the sacrament of the world and the sacrament of incarnation/ Eucharist also remind us that we too are sacramental, matter made holy by spirit. Our bodies are not corpses moved by ghosts, or cars steered by angels, but temples of the Holy Spirit. …They do not leave the Church because they know that the sacramental fire burns there on the ecclesiastical hearth. Even if they do not see by its light, they want to be warmed by its fire. The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a magnet drawing lost sheep home and keeping would-be strays from the deathly snows outside. The Church's biggest drawing card is not what she teaches, crucial as that is, but who is there. "He is here! Therefore I must be here." What I learned From a Muslim about Eucharistic Adoration Peter Kreeft The central problem of the Church today is that most of the generation now becoming adults simply do not know Jesus Christ. We do,” said John. “Your Church teaches that he is really present there, yes? That what's there is the man who was God?” “Yes. The formula is 'Body and blood, soul and divinity.'” “And you believe that?” “Yes.” Isa made as if to say something, but stifled it. John assured him he would not be offended. Finally, reluctantly, Isa said, “I don't understand.” "I understand how you feel. It sounds very shocking.” “No, you don't understand. That's not what I mean. You will take it as an insult, but I don't mean it to be.” “I promise I won't take it as an insult. But I really want to know what's on your mind.” “Well then. . . . I don't think you really do believe that. I don't mean to say you're dishonest, but . . . .” “I think I know what you mean. You can't empathize with anyone who believes something so shocking. You don't see how you could ever get down on your knees before that altar.” “No, I don't see how I could ever get up. If I believed that thing that looks like a little round piece of bread was really Allah Himself, I think I would just faint. I would fall at His feet like a dead man.” John looked carefully at my reaction as he reported Isa's words. My eyes opened, and he smiled. “What did you say to him?” I asked. “Nothing. Then, after a while, just 'Yes.'” John is a wise man. We worship Christ not things created by men, that is Idolatry. We do not ingest his presence, the Real Presence of Christ resides in the believers, not wafers. Kreeft goes as far as to teach: “Christ is really, though invisibly, present in the whole of The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is like the Eucharist. Under its appearances we find Christ, who under these (pagan, universal) figures (symbols, not allegories), is truly hidden: quae sub hisfiguris vere latitat. A sixth presence is ecclesial. Tolkien was a Catholic and called The Lord of the Rings “a Catholic book” (see section 2.4). He removed “churches” from The Lord of the Rings not only to avoid anachronism but also to show the presence, in the depths of his plot, of the universal (“catholic”) Church. For the Church is not only an organization but also an organism, an invisible, “mystical” Body, a “fellowship”. The word “church”, from the Greek ek-klesia, means “the called out”. A good description of the Fellowship of the Ring. For the Church, too, is a “fellowship of a ring”, but her ring is exactly the opposite of Sauron’s. It is the Eucharist: a little wafer that is equally round, but full rather than empty; the humble extension of the Incarnation of God into man rather than the proud self-exaltation of man in order to make himself God . (THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE “LORD OF THE RINGS” by Peter J. Kreeft August 2, 2012)If you can find the Eucharist in this movie you can find it anywhere. No wonder Catholics see Jesus and Mary in trees and cookies and inanimate objects. "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing." John 6:64. Jesus (and Paul’s) teaching was that we receive the Spirit, not through a literal mouth-eating act of His supposed flesh, but by hearing and believing. "Do you receive the Spirit by hearing and believing?" Gal. 3:2; or by ingesting bread? Salvation has always been through faith in God, not some physical act or object, obtained by a work, by a ritual. Paul defines actual faith as: 'The substance of things hoped for, the reality of things not seen." The Roman Catholic sees Jesus as a piece of bread that was changed by a priest. Never mind that it still looks like the same bread, you must believe it’s really Jesus. At the Passover which Jews had kept for 1,500 years Christ explained its significance. 1 Cor. 11:23-28 "And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom." (Matt. 26:26-29). Consider that Jesus also partook of this bread and wine, something all Jews did for 1,500 years from Moses’ time. Did Christ eat His own body? If they take literally the words, "This is my body" why not take literally the other words: "I have greatly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer"? He ate and gave the bread to His disciples to eat, and likewise the wine to drink in order to commemorate (in remembrance) His body and blood, which He was going to sacrifice for the next day. "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. I Cor. 11:26. Proclaim 2605 kataggello-1) to announce, to declare, to promulgate, to make known. 2) to proclaim publicly, to publish. 3) to denounce, to report, to betray. The words "Do this in remembrance of me" and "to proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes," does not imply it is actually Him but a presentation to others of what He has done, just as baptism is a presentation of what has taken place in a believer’s life. The other mistake which is also Roman Catholic is that the water actually washes your sins away, and saves you. Christ is not actually present bodily in the Eucharist, otherwise how could it be done in remembrance of Him. How can it proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes if He is present with His body, blood, soul and deity on the altars all over the world. Then we have the second coming. Jesus warned us about this kind of thing. Luke 17:22-23 Then He said to the disciples, "The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. "And they will say to you, 'Look here!' or 'Look there!' Do not go after them or follow them. And in Matt 24:26 "Therefore if they say to you, 'Look, He is in the desert!' do not go out; or 'Look, He is in the inner rooms!' do not believe it. The apostles understood these words of our Lord did not mean in a material sense. They knew that the words "this Passover" did not mean the literal Passover, and that the words "This is my body" did not mean the literal body, but the representation, a typology of what he would actually do. Jesus took the third cup of wine in the Pesach meal, and explained what it meant. Matt 26:27-29 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." Why did Jesus call the cup, "the fruit of the vine" if it was his literal blood? He called it wine, not His actual blood that would be shed from His body. Clearly the wine and bread they ate was not an extension of him. Nor did they did not worship or adore the bread and wine. Furthermore the sacrifice at Passover was unto the Father at the time of the crucifixion the lambs were slain, not before. Just as John introduced him to Israel, “behold the lamb who takes away the sins of the world.” The new covenant is NOT the bread and the wine but Jesus Himself. How do we know this? Heb. 9:15 “And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death,” Did the bread die, or did Jesus? Heb 12:24 “to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant,” The person who is God in the flesh made the covenant by his death at the time of the Passover, he ALONE is the lamb slain. The bible says it is a memorial because “Christ offered ONCE to take away the sins of many." Heb. 9:27, 28. Heb. 10:14. "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL." Heb.10:10. Not through the Eucharist The Roman Church claims that the sacrifice of the Mass is bloodless. If so, there is no remission of sins, because its not the real sacrifice: "Without shedding of blood there is no remission." (Heb. 9:22) And the life is in the blood according to the Old Testament. Nowhere does the bible point to what was distributed at the last supper as the actual body and blood Jesus physically gave for sin. Where does it ever say God became bread, like He became man?
To get our DVD on Roman Catholicism |
|
|
