Catholicism and
Christianity
I will attempt to show that Catholicism is an errant form of Christianity in that it does not adhere to Biblical teaching. I am not implying that Catholics are not Christians. For the most part, the Catholic laity love Christ and are of the body. The inculpation lies at the feet of the Catholic priests, bishops, and Pope. These know what the Bible teaches, yet preach and teach what is not in the Bible. They have added to the Bible doctrines of men. These men will be judged most severely.
Is Roman
Catholicism a faith based
on the Bible? Was the Reformation a mistake that split Christendom or
an act of
God to rescue true Christianity from a false church?
Is the Protestant movement the only movement
based in Christ?
Again, in asking these questions I do not wish to stir up hostility to Roman Catholics, and I again I add that I do not doubt that many of the Catholic laity are sincere in their faith, as are many of some of my friends who are, what I would call, moderate Catholics. However, sincerity is not a guarantee of truth, and it needs to be recognized that there are very significant errors in Roman Catholic teaching when viewed in the light of the Bible. Down through the centuries Christians who sought to bring these errors to light have often been persecuted and even put to death by the Roman Catholic Church.
The major false doctrines of Roman
Catholicism are (and I will revisit these
doctrines throughout this
paper):
Justification
by
Works
Article
135 of the Catholic
Catechism says, ‘Faith alone will not save us without good
works.’ The Bible
teaches we are saved by faith in the work of Jesus Christ dying as a
sacrifice
for our sins. Good works are the result of our faith, but they do not
save us:
‘For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not
of yourselves; it
is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are
his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared
beforehand that we should walk in them.’ (Ephesians 2.8-10.)
Baptismal
regeneration
Article
256 of the Catechism says,
‘Baptism is a Sacrament
which cleanses us from original sin,
makes us Christians, children of God and members of the
Church’ (i.e. a
baby becomes a Christian through being baptized). Article 259 says this
sacrament is given by pouring water on the head of a child. (NB the
Greek word
‘baptizo’ means to immerse in water not to sprinkle
with water). It does not
take long for parents of babies who have had water poured on them in
this way
to discover that they are not cleansed from original sin!
The
Bible teaches that we must be
'born again' (John 3.5-8)
through repentance and faith
in what Jesus Christ has done for us, after which we are baptized (but
baptism,
though appropriate, does not save.
There
are some Christians who believe that a Christian must
be baptized to be saved.
This is a wrong view.
Please
think about the criminal on the cross whom Christ stated that he would
be in
Use
of images
Article 186 of the Catechism says, ‘We should give relics, crucifixes, and holy pictures a relative honor, as they relate to Christ and his Saints, and are memorials of them.’ Catholic churches are full of idols, especially of Mary, which become objects of worship. The 10 commandments forbid idolatry and remain valid for Christians. ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God’ (Exodus 20.4-5).
It can
be said that some
Christians worship and idolize the Bible.
There are some who do idolize and worship the Bible, which
is just as
wrong as idolizing an image. Protestants
should be aware that the Bible, though it is the word of God and should
be held
in high esteem, is not God. I
have seen
some Christians kiss the Bible as if they think they are kissing God. And I have seen some
Christians that bind
their Bibles in expensive leather, yet hardly ever read what is in the
Bible
and do not practice in their daily lives what the Word suggests. Is this not wrong? Catholics are wrong in
viewing idols as
objects of worship; however, Protestants are just as wrong when they
place the
Bible above what it is…words to bring one closer to God. The words of God are not
God. They must be
assimilated by the hearts of men
which will then lead one to Him.
Papal
infallibility
The Catechism says: ‘When I say that the Pope is infallible, I mean that the Pope cannot err when, as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the whole church’ (Article 93). The Catechism goes on to say that ‘the Church cannot err in what she teaches as to faith or morals, for she is our infallible guide in both’ (Article 100). The Bible tells us that only God is infallible and that all human individuals and institutions are tainted by sin and liable to error. ‘For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3.23).
Having said this, attempt to go to a bishop or pastor of a Protestant church and tell him that what he has just stated in a sermon or a letter is wrong or might be in error, or what the church he presides over is not adhering to pure Biblical teaching. What would be the response? I know what the response is, because it has happened to me. First, they attempt to lord it over you, that you cannot possibly know what he knows. Then tell him that you have a ThD. Degree and state that it is possible that you may know more then does he. What will happen then? The protestant minister will indicate that you are not a member of his church. Counter with the argument that “his” church is not his but Christ’s. And I am a member of the body of Christ. No response.
There are supercilious ministers and leaders in many church organizations, Catholic as well as Protestant. They seem to teach what is expedient. This should not be; but this man who has lived under the sun for over 50 years has found this to be true. There is a hierarchy of inaninity in some Christian organizations. One is one too many.
The hierarchy of priests going up to the Pope as ‘Vicar of Christ’ on earth entirely conflicts with the concept Jesus taught the disciples about spiritual authority. Jesus told us not to call any man ‘Father’ (Papa / Pope). ‘But you, do not be called Rabbi; for one is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for one is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for one is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant’ (Matthew 23.8-11).
This is
what the Bible teaches,
true; however, how many church leaders actually put this servant
teaching into
practice? Think
about this. There
are not that many. There
are few churches that do not have a
hierarchical form of leadership. I
have
seen in my years under the sun that those who taut the Bible as the
word of God
seem to pick and choose
what should and should not be
practiced. They
emphasize some aspects
and completely ignore those aspects that do not fit in to what they
wish to do
as leaders of a church. It is true that we all sin and fall short.
Of the numerous doctrines Roman
Catholics must believe
under pain of grievous sin, there are two upon which the Catholic Faith
is
dependent for its continued existence. To the question,
“Which is the one
true Church founded by Jesus Christ?” the answer is, the
Catholic Church is the
one true Church founded by Christ.” To the second question,
“And upon what did
Jesus found His Church?” the correct answer, according to
Catholics is, “Jesus
founded His Church on the rock of Peter who was the first
pope.”
Since the first claim - the true
Church claim - rests
squarely on the allegation that Peter was ordained to be its first
pope, it is appropriate
to seek in the Scriptures proof that Jesus really did give Peter such
an
assignment. There, in the inerrant Word of God, we have every
right to
expect to find Peter’s appointment clearly set forth,
established as a fact
beyond a shadow of a doubt. What we do find, though, is what follows in
the
following paragraphs.
The English word,
“pope,” comes from the Latin word,
“papa,” which means “father.”
But our Lord told His disciples,
(and us through them), “…call
no man your father upon the earth: for one
is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9)
This had to be meant
in a spiritual sense since we all have earthly fathers, while our
heavenly
Father is a spirit to be worshiped in spirit and truth. (John 4:24) And
based
on this admonition from Jesus, there should not be a Catholic
priesthood, much
less a papacy, for all Catholic priests are addressed as,
“Father.”
On another occasion, when His Apostles
were disputing about
leadership matters, Our Lord called them together for a disclosure of His
organizational plan. He said, “Ye
know that the princes of the
Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise
authority upon them. But it shall NOT BE SO AMONG YOU: but whosoever
will be
great among you, let him be your minister; And
whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” (Matthew
20:25-27)
From this it is clear Jesus was
strongly opposed to any
“prince” or “princes”
exercising dominion over His flock.
Historically, it was not until the 3rd
century,
nearly 200 years after our Lord’s return to His heavenly
throne, that a bishop
of
In Greek, Peter is petros,
masculine gender,
defined as a small rock, one that can be picked up and skipped across
the
surface of a pond. It is a derivative of the root word,
To the most respected theologians of
the early Church, the Massive
Foundation Rock of Matthew 16:18 was not
Peter, but Peter’s statement of FACT – “Thou
art the Christ,
(Jewish Messiah) the Son of the living
God.” That Jesus was and
is the Messiah promised in Genesis, that He was and is the Son of God
incarnate, are, in fact, the very foundation of Christianity. That is
exactly
what was taught in opposition to Calixtus 1 by Cyril, Hilary,
Tertullian,
Jerome, Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and
the honored
Greek scholar, Chrysostom.
Unfortunately, what the most famous
early believers taught
is not always considered by the
Beginning in Exodus, the Old Testament
is full of
references to Jesus, the coming Messiah, as the foundation rock of
saving
faith. He it is who is symbolized by the rocks out of which came fresh
water in
Exodus 17:6 and Numbers 20:10. Moses, in Deuteronomy 32:4, wrote, “He
(Jesus) is the ROCK.”
Rebuking the Nation of Israel in 32:18, he
said, “Of the ROCK that begat thee thou
art unmindful.” And in 32:31,
he said, “…their
(the enemy’s) rock is not as our
ROCK.” In
her prayer for a man child recorded in 1 Samuel 2:2, Hannah says, “…neither
is there any ROCK like our God.” And
David, just escaped from Saul, in
2 Samuel 22:2 gives credit for his safety this way: “The
LORD is my ROCK,
and my fortress, and my deliverer.”
Clear references to our Lord as the
ROCK spoken of
throughout the Scriptures, also are found in Psalms 18, 28, 31, 40, 42,
61, 62,
71, 78, 89, 92, 94, and 95. See also Isaiah
In the New Testament, our
Lord’s parable of the wise and
foolish builders, recorded in Matthew 7 and Luke 6, leaves no doubt
that Jesus,
not Peter, is the foundation rock on which those who are wise establish
their
faith. Paul recognized Christ was the nation of
The foregoing cited Scriptures not
only don’t support
In his own first epistle, Peter
acknowledges a title far
different from bishop or pope. Says he, “The
elders which are among you I
exhort, who am also an ELDER.” (1 Peter
5:1) Then he says: “Feed
the flock of God
which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint,
but
willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
Neither as
BEING LORDS over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the
flock.”
From these words in particular, and from the general tenor of both his
letters,
one concludes that Peter had no idea he had been ordained the first
pope of a
Church that did not come into existence until the 5th
century.
In the account of the
Church’s first general council
reported in Acts 15, it is James, the brother of Jesus, and not Peter,
who
provides the solution to the problem under discussion. (Cf. Acts
15:13-23.)
Even before that council, Peter was not acting like the supreme leader
of the
flock. Rather than directing the actions of others, he was being
directed, as
the following attests. “Now when the
apostles which were at
from
Jesus the promise of sitting one on His right hand, and one on His left
in the
coming kingdom. This, long after Matthew 16:18 had taken place, and a
clear indication
that the Apostles had no idea Peter had been ordained their leader.
There is additional biblical evidence
refuting the
letter to the
Galatian churches Paul is openly critical of Peter, saying, “when
Peter
was come to
Finally, still consulting the
Scriptures, we learn that
Paul, not Peter, received the Gospel directly from the lips of Jesus. “But
I certify you, brethren, that
the gospel which was
preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man,
neither was
I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal
1:11,12) And in 2 Peter
3:16, we get the impression that at
least some of what Christ had given to Paul was not known to Peter, for
he says
that in Paul’s letters “are some
things hard to be understood.” Inevitably
comes this question, if
Jesus made Peter head of the
Church, why was Paul the one chosen to receive the Gospel directly from
our
Lord?
The binding and loosing authority the
Vatican claims
exclusively for its popes was given to all of the Apostles, not just
Peter;
(Matthew 18:18) and, in fact to all believers when Jesus said, “Again
I
say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any
thing
that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in
heaven;
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there
am I in the
midst of them.” (Matthew 18: 19,20)
When all of the Scriptures concerning
Peter’s alleged
ordination as pope are reviewed it becomes manifestly clear that he was
only
one of twelve chosen men, who will sit on twelve thrones in the
millennium,
judging the twelve tribes of
I
will now include a short
history lesson to buttress what I have written
above……
The great
Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom,
Gregory
of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock
upon which
Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle
Peter. That
is hard, cold, unyielding history. In his 13th
sermon, preserved I
believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear:
“Thou art
Peter, and on this Rock –
on this rock which
thou hast known, saying: ‘Thou art Christ, the Son
of the living God,’
I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son
of the living God;
I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.”
Roman Catholic apologists
have called this writer some unflattering names for stating that there
was no
pope and no papacy for more than 500 years after Christ returned to
heaven. But
history is history, and all the name calling in the world will not
alter the
fact that Augustine spoke the previously quoted words during his years
in
Africa as bishop of Hippo – get this, now – in the
first third of the FIFTH
CENTURY. Moreover, Augustine’s conviction
– based on a correct
interpretation of the Scriptures - that Jesus was the foundation rock
of
Christianity was shared almost by a vast majority of the churches
existing at
that time.
Following the
abortive attempt of Calixtus I to seize control of Christendom, Stephen
I,
bishop of
So, even
when Constantine the Great convoked the famous Council of Nicaea early
in the
FOURTH CENTURY there was no pope and no papacy. Constantine, who is not
listed
as a pope in
In that fourth
century, five episcopates emerged as jurisdictional centers to which
individual
independent churches could look for counsel in ecclesiastical matters.
These
five were
More history,
easily checked by those seeking truth and not vindication of false
teachings:
at the FIFTH CENTURY Council of Carthage, (AD 412) convoked by that
city’s
bishop Aurelius, the assembled prelates drafted a letter to the bishop
of
The actual
hijacking of Christendom by the bishops of
Leo intimidated a
lot of people by his various claims, one of which was, “Lord
of the
The first bishop
of
“I
confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called
Universal
Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before
anti-Christ……St. Peter is
not called Universal Apostle ….Far from CHRISTIAN (not
Catholic) hearts be that
blasphemous name.”
To the bishop
of
“profane,
superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate."
No matter
that Gregory I refused such a signal honor, and believed that anyone
claiming
to be universal bishop would in fact be Anti-Christ. A successor,
Boniface III,
AD 607-8, coerced the Emperor, Phocas, to confer upon him that very
title of
Universal Bishop, papa, or pope, of all Christendom. The eastern
churches
refused to submit to his self-assumed authority, however, so Boniface
and all
his successors have had to settle for a partial monarchy ruling only
the western
churches. Historically, then
And, even
after Boniface III succeeded in gaining for bishops of
Also included
in the collection were letters of popes from Sylvester 1 (4th
century) to Gregory II (8th century) in which are
more than 40 falsifications. But the most pope-friendly inclusion was a
document entitled, “The Donation of Constantine.”
Thought to be authentic for
600 years, and used successfully by bishops of
On the one
hand,
Allegedly donated by Constantine the
Great to Sylvester 1,
bishop of
The
Donation of Constantine was shown
to be a deliberate forgery in AD 1440 by Lorenzo Valla, but not before
the
Celibacy
and the
Priesthood
The
Roman Catholic Church forbids
priests to marry, thus creating a distinction between the priesthood
and the
laity. The word priest is never used of special servants of the Lord in
the New
Testament, but is used to describe all who believe in Jesus. There is
never any
distinction in the New Testament between clergy and laity. Probably the
doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, mentioned in Revelation 2.6, 2.15, as
something
which Jesus hates, relates to the rise of the clergy having a special
status.
Nicolaitanes is taken from two Greek words meaning ‘victory
over the people (
The New
Testament teaches the
priesthood of all believers. ‘But
you are a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, his own special
people’
(1 Peter 2.9). ‘And they
sang a new song, saying: “You are
worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for you were slain,
and have
redeemed us to God by your blood out of every tribe and tongue and
people and
nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall
reign on
the earth”’ (Revelation 5.9-10).
Peter,
considered falsely to be
the first Pope, had a wife as the following scriptures indicate. ‘But Simon's (Peter) wife's mother lay
sick with a fever, and they told him about her at once. So he came and
took her
by the hand and lifted her up, and immediately the fever left her. And
she
served them’ (Mark 1.30).
‘Do we have no right to take
along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of
the
Lord, and Cephas? (Aramaic
form of Peter)’ (1
Corinthians 9.5).
Enforced
celibacy is described as
a ‘doctrine of demons.’ ‘Now the Spirit
expressly says that in latter times
some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and
doctrines
of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience
seared with
a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods
that God
created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know
the
truth’ (1 Timothy 4.1-3).
Confessional
In Catholicism
people are told to go to confession, where sins are confessed to a
priest who
then declares absolution for those sins. The Bible teaches that we
confess our
sins to God and receive forgiveness through the blood of Jesus.
‘This is the
message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is
light and
in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with
Him, and
walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk
in the
light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and
the blood
of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we
have no
sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess
our sins,
He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from
all
unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar,
and His
word is not in us. My little children, these things I write to you, so
that you
may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father,
Jesus
Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins,
and not
for ours only but also for the whole world’ (1 John 1.5-2.2).
Purgatory
Purgatory
is neither heaven nor
hell, but ‘a place where
souls suffer for a time after death
on account of their sins’ (Catechism, Article
106). But in the Bible the
only places mentioned where we go after death are heaven and hell.
Those who
are saved in this life by trusting in Jesus to forgive their sins need
no further
suffering to refine them and prepare them for heaven--
‘Now I saw a new heaven and a new
earth, for the
first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no
more sea.
Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of
heaven from
God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud
voice from
heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men,
and He will dwell
with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them
and be
their God.” And God will wipe away every tear from their
eyes; there shall be
no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for
the
former things have passed away.’ … ‘But
the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable,
murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall
have
their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is
the second
death’ (Revelation 21.1-8).
Transubstantiation
(I will go in depth concerning this on several occasions in
this paper.)
According
to this concept Jesus
needs to be sacrificed continually through the
But the
Bible teaches that Christ's sacrifice was complete and final and can
never be
repeated. Communion or the Lord's Supper is the remembrance of that
sacrifice.
‘For Christ has
not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the
true, but
into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not
that He
should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy
Place every
year with blood of another. He then would have had to suffer often
since the
foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has
appeared
to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for
men to
die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to
bear the
sins of many’(Hebrews
9.24-28).
‘For I received
from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus
on the
same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given
thanks,
He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is
broken for you; do
this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took
the cup after
supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My
blood. This do, as often
as you drink it, in
remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and
drink this cup, you
proclaim the Lord's death till He comes’(1
Corinthians
11.23-26).
Indulgences
In the
Middle Ages priests went
throughout Europe persuading people to give money to the Church
claiming that
as a result a person's time in purgatory could be reduced. But since
there is
no such place as purgatory, this became a trick to deceive people into
parting
with their money for the benefit of the church. There is no way that we
can buy
favor with God. ‘Knowing
that you were not redeemed with
corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct
received by
tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as
of a
lamb without blemish and without spot’ (1 Peter
1.18-19).
An indulgence, according
to the Roman Catholic Church, is a means of remission of the temporal
punishment for sins that have already been forgiven but are due to the
Christian in this life and/or in purgatory. This punishment
is most often
in purgatory but can also be suffered in this life. An
indulgence removes
time needed to be spent in purgatory. There are two kinds of
indulgences: partial and plenary. A partial
indulgence removes part
of the punishment of sins. A plenary indulgence removes all
of the punishment
of sins. Granting an indulgence of a certain number
of days or
years means that is how many days or years is removed from the time of
punishment a person must undergo in purgatory.
On the inside of the cover of
the New St. Joseph
Baltimore Catechism published in 1969 there is a prayer. After the
prayer it
says the following: "An indulgence of five years. A plenary indulgence
on
the usual conditions,
provided this prayer has been
recited daily for a month." This means that by saying the prayer
properly
five years is removed from a person's time in purgatory! Which
is absurd.
On the same page of the New
St. Joseph Baltimore
Catechism it says, "The faithful who devote 20 minutes to a half hour
to
teaching or studying Christian doctrine, may gain: an indulgence of
three
years. A plenary indulgence on the
usual conditions twice a
month, if the above practice is carried out at least twice a month." Again,
absurd.
So, we can see that according
to this catechism if you
say the prayer properly you can have five years removed from your time
in
purgatory. Likewise, if the faithful devote 20 minutes to a
half hour to
teaching or studying Christian doctrine, they can have three years
removed from
purgatory. Is this biblical? Not
at all.
It is ridiculous to think that reading doctrine and saying a prayer
removes
time of punishment in the Catholic-invented place called
purgatory. It is
nothing more than a means to control the Catholics and keep them
dependent on
"The Mother Church".
The Treasury of the Church
The Treasury of the Church is a
storehouse of merit that has been earned the sacrifice of Christ and
the
prayers and good works of
the Virgin Mary and all the saints.
This reservoir of merit
is drawn upon and applied to Roman Catholics via the Roman Catholic
Church so
that their future duration of punishment might be reduced.
So,
essentially what we have is a system where merit is dispensed through
the Roman
Catholic sacraments and priesthood.
·
"We also call these
spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church's
treasury, which is "not
the sum total of the material goods which
have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary
the
'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be
exhausted,
which Christ's merits have before God. They were offered so that the
whole of
mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the
Father. In
Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his
Redemption
exist and find their efficacy." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1476)
·
"This treasury includes
as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are
truly
immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In
the
treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all
those who
have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have
made
their lives holy and carried out the mission in the unity of the
Mystical
Body." (CCC 1477)
In
short, this treasury of the church
of Rome is a means
by which it keeps its people dependent upon its sacramental,
ecclesiastical
system. Without participation in Roman Catholic Sacraments,
future
punishment will be far more extensive. The Roman Catholic
Church keeps
its people coming back to it, dependent upon it, needful for the
dispensing of
the treasury of merit that it has at its disposal. Instead of
the Roman
Catholic being completely sanctified and justified in Christ, by the
work of
Christ on the cross, the very propitiation offered by the Lord in his
sacrifice
is usurped by the Roman Catholic Church. The power and
priesthood and
mediation of Christ is
replaced by that of the Roman
Catholic Church, and it becomes the means by which the so-called people
of God
are relieved of their sin punishment. This is a blasphemous
claim of
The Problem with Indulgences
The patent problem with
indulgence is that it negates the all-sufficiency of the cross. It was
Jesus
who took our punishment. He took our place so that we do not
have to
suffer any punishment for our sins so that we might be made right with
God. I
am not saying that sins do not have consequences and
punishments. What I
mean to say is that being made right with God is not by our suffering,
but by
Christ's.
The Second Vatican
Council, p. 63, mentions purgatory as a place of punishment for our
sins:
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by
punishments. God’s holiness and justice inflict them. Sins
must be expiated.
This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials
of this
life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be
made in the
next life through fire and torments or purifying
punishments." Indulgences only have
value in Catholicism
due to the unbiblical teaching of purgatory which the Roman Catholic
Church
teaches is a place of punishment where people expiate their own sins
there
(CCC 1475).
Expiation is "a term
associated with the removal,
cleansing, or forgiveness of sin." But
how does a person
expiate or cleanse himself of his own sins? One does
not. If there
were a means by which a person could cleanse oneself of sin, then
Christ died
on the cross in vain.
Nevertheless, out of the
teaching of purgatory, and temporal punishment comes the teaching of
indulgences -- a means by which punishment for sin is reduced through a
person's own sufferings. How horrible is this teaching since
it reduces
the power and glory of the cross and says we can expiate our own sins,
instead
of trusting in Christ alone for this. The Roman Catholic
Church needs to
recant its false teaching and urge its people to look to Christ alone
and not
to its priesthood, its treasury of merit, its sacraments, or its rules
and
regulations for the salvation of souls.
Indulgences
is not a biblical
teaching. It is blatantly a false teaching.
Penance
It was
also taught that by
inflicting pain and torment on one's body one could reduce time in
purgatory.
Self inflicted suffering to atone for our sins is of no value, since
Christ’s
sufferings are enough to redeem us. ‘For
Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He
might
bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the
Spirit’
(1 Peter 3.18). Self denial from sins of the flesh is of
course taught
in the Bible.
Mariolatry
The
Roman Catholic church
elevates Mary to the status of ‘mother
of God’ (Catechism, Article 167) and ‘Queen of Heaven’
(Article 168a). Although the Catechism does not say she should be
worshipped
and seen as a mediator along with Jesus Christ, this is the result in
practice
of this teaching, as can be seen by the size of the images of the
Madonna in
many Catholic Churches. Article 117 says: ‘All
mankind has
contracted the guilt and stain of original sin, except The Blessed
Virgin and
her Divine Son.’
What is
Mariology, then? Essentially,
it’s the theology that affords devotion to Mary.
Does this mean the
Catholics worship Mary? Well, yes and no. Publicly,
the Roman
Catholic Church does not afford Mary the same status as
Jesus. However,
their reverence for her goes beyond their admiration for even the
saints.
The Catholic
Encyclopedia details
a view of Mary that it admits is not
Biblical. Their view of her life and her role originate in
Catholic
tradition – that is, the writings of the popes and
theologians, rather than in
the Bible.
Biblically,
Mary was betrothed to
Joseph. Because of her faith, she was chosen to give birth to
the
Messiah, Jesus Christ. She was overshadowed by the Holy
Spirit, and
conceived Jesus. There was no physical union, and therefore
Jesus was
born of a virgin. While no doubt a faithful and godly woman,
Mary was
nonetheless just a woman. In fact, apart from Acts 1:14, Mary
is not
mentioned anywhere outside the Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and
John). Even in the Gospels, her spiritual power and authority
are almost
non-existent. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any other biblical
writer ever
gave Mary the place or devotion that the Catholic Church has given
her.
The New Testament epistles (letters) were written for the spiritual
guidance of
the Church, and have a great deal to say about doctrine and
worship. Her
absence from the epistles must then call into doubt the role that
Catholics
ascribe to her.
In Roman
Catholicism, Mary (or as she’s also
called: Our Blessed Lady, Our Blessed Virgin, etc.) is more than
human.
Catholic Tradition includes the following teachings:
1
– Mary’s immaculate
conception:
This doctrine teaches that she was born without original sin, and was
therefore
sinless throughout her life.
2
– During her tutelage in the temple as a child, Mary
received almost nightly visits by angels.
3
– Mary’s perpetual virginity:
This doctrine
asserts that she had no children before Jesus (a Biblical teaching) or
after
Him (unbiblical).
4
– Mary’s physical ascension into heaven:
This
teaches that because of her sinlessness, Mary never experienced a
physical
death – the result of sin. Instead, she was raised
bodily into the
presence of Christ.
5
– Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix and
Mediatrix of all
graces: This doctrine holds that the obedience and
sufferings of Mary
were essential to secure the full redemption bought by Christ.
6
– Mary’s right to veneration and/or
worship:
This teaching holds that because of her unparalleled role in salvation,
Mary is
worthy of special adoration.
There are
three specific terms of worship in
Catholicism: latria – adoration that is due God
alone, dulia – veneration
afforded to the saints, and hyperdulia – special veneration
given to
Mary. In practice, these become practically
indistinguishable.
Catholics pray to Mary and expect that she hears and answers all such
prayers. This elevates her to a position of deity.
I have
already mentioned that the role that
is ascribed to Mary by Catholics is unbiblical. Let me give
you more
evidence. Below, I have included an excerpt from the Catholic
Encyclopedia, where
the writer acknowledges that their
interpretation of a passage in the book of Genesis must be more
accurate than
the original Hebrew text, as their interpretation ascribes more power
to
Mary:
The first
prophecy referring to Mary is
found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (
…It
concerns the agent who is to inflict the mortal wound on the servant:
our version agrees with the present Vulgate text in reading
“she” (ipsa)
which refers to the woman, while the Hebrew text reads hu’
(autos,
ipse) which refers to the seed of the woman. According
to our version,
and the Vulgate reading, the woman herself will win the victory;
according to
the Hebrew text, she will be victorious through her seed. In this sense
does
the Bull “Ineffabilis” ascribe the victory to Our
Blessed Lady.
The reading “she” (ipsa) is
neither an intentional corruption of the
original text, nor is it an accidental error; it is rather an
explanatory
version expressing explicitly the fact of Our Lady’s part in
the victory over
the serpent, which is contained implicitly in the Hebrew original. The
strength of the Christian tradition as to Mary’s share in
this victory may be
inferred from the retention of “she” in St.
Jerome’s version in spite of his
acquaintance with the original text and with the reading
“he” (ipse) in
the old Latin version
For the
record, the text of Genesis
In
his book, Revelation Unveiled,
author Tim LaHaye
writes:
"One
of
the dangerous trends during the twentieth century in the Church of Rome
is the
elevation of Mary to a status just short of deity. News media
reports
indicate that millions have petitioned the Pope to declare her a member
of the
Trinity, though the official line is that it is not going to happen -
yet. Already she is referred to as 'the mother of God' or
'the queen of
Heaven' and in some instances appears to be the dispenser of salvation,
which
contradicts many Scriptures...To even suggest that anyone, even Mary
the human
mother of Jesus, participates in dispensing the gift of eternal life is
not
only heresy, it is blasphemous."
As
for the Catholic view of Mary as Mediatrix, I will refer
you to:
1 Timothy
2:5, "For there is one God and one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
Among
the aberrant Catholic sacraments and doctrines, one of the least
understood is
that of the Eucharist and transubstantiation, which I alluded to
earlier in
this paper. While analogous to communion in many ways, it is
also worlds
apart, separated by an ocean of heresy. The following will
provide a
basic analysis of the Catholic Eucharist, and reveal the ways in which
it is
unbiblical and a denial of the sufficiency of Jesus' sacrifice on the
cross.
The Catholic Church teaches that once
a Catholic priest has
consecrated the wafer of bread during communion,
or
“Eucharist” as it is called by Catholics, it turns
into the literal and real
body, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. It is no longer a
piece of
bread. It is Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread, and
is therefore
worthy of worship and adoration. This process of consecration
followed by
a literal change from a mere wafer to the body of Christ is called
transubstantiation. The following paragraphs are taken from
the Catholic
Catechism.
Paragraph
1374, page 383
“In the
most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together
with the
soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole
Christ is
truly, really, and substantially contained.”
“The
Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship.
Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse
the time to
go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open
to making
amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let
our
adoration never cease.”
“Because
Christ himself is present in the sacrament of the altar, he is to be
honored
with the worship of adoration.”
The Catholic Church similarly teaches
that the wine or
water taken with the wafer becomes the literal blood of Christ upon
consecration by a priest. They claim that Jesus taught
transubstantiation
at the last supper and that the disciples were anointed with the power
to
change bread into the actual presence of Christ. This
authority was then
passed down through priestly ordination and apostolic
succession.
To the early church the practice of
the Lord’s Supper was a
time of fellowship and a meal memorializing Christ’s
sacrifice. The bread
and wine were taken in a Thanksgiving celebration that came to be known
as the
Eucharist. Eucharist comes from the Greek word, eucharistia,
which
means “thanksgiving”. It was a
celebration held in expectation of the
Marriage Supper of the Lamb that awaits all believers before the
Glorious
Appearing (Rev. 19:9). The transubstantiation doctrine of the
Catholic
Church was not taught or practiced until the middle ages, long after
the
emergence of Roman Catholicism in the 6th
Century A.D.
Four Catholic Popes can be credited
with the evolution of
the Eucharist to include several of the traditions now held by
Catholics.
1.
Sixtus
III, bishop of
2.
Felix IV, (AD 526-530)
separated the altar as a holy place to be used exclusively for blessing
the
Eucharist elements.
3.
Boniface II (AD 530-532)
came up with altar coverings
4.
Gregory I (AD 590-604) in
his early 7th century reforms added candles,
tabernacles to hold the
elements, and the vestments worn by priests.
The early church
never practiced these traditions.
The Mass did not change from a celebration meal of thanksgiving to a
ceremonial
encounter with the literal body and blood of Jesus until the 12th
century. The doctrine of transubstantiation was decreed in AD
1215 at the
fourth Lateran Council.
The Catholic Church places a great
deal of authority on
antiquity and appearing to be an exact replica of the early
church. Therefore,
when history proves that most Catholic traditions are found nowhere in
the
early church, and are in fact the result of an evolution of doctrines
as they
were passed down through a succession of Popes, the church simply
rewrites
history. This works because the laity are
taught to never question the authority of the Church.
Investigating the
historical record and the evidence for the Church’s claims to
authority would
be tantamount to questioning the Pope.
While the Catholic Church relies
heavily on a revised
history to support their claims, they also use the Pope’s
interpretation of
scripture as a support. I say
“the
Pope’s interpretation” because the laity is not
allowed to interpret scripture
for themselves and must look to the church for its meaning instead.
One of the verses the Catechism lists to support transubstantiation is
Luke
22:19,20--
And
he took
bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying,
“This is my body
given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In
the same way, after the
supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant
in my blood,
which is poured out for you.
Its
proponents
also commonly use chapter 6 in the book of John as a support for
transubstantiation.
John
6:51-55 “I am the living bread that came
down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.
This
bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Then
the Jews
began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man
give us his flesh to
eat? Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth,
unless you eat the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink his blood,
you have no
life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has
eternal life,
and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and
my blood
is real drink.”
When
Christians
participate in the Lord’s Supper we do it in remembrance
of the
sacrifice Christ made for us. The bread represents the body
of Christ,
and the wine represents the blood sacrificed to cover our
sins. This
verse and the verses in John do not teach that the bread is the literal
flesh
of Jesus, and the wine is the literal blood of Christ.
The key to
understanding scripture is to read it in context. We know
from context
when to interpret scripture literally, and when the context demands a
figurative or symbolic interpretation. The Bible is replete
with verses
that use metaphors, symbols, and descriptive images to make a point or
explain
a teaching. Some examples of metaphors that would not be
taken literally
are listed below.
Psalm
34:8 “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good.”
John
4:14-- “Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him
will never
thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in
him a fountain
of water springing up into everlasting life.”
This verse does not mean that
believers will literally have
a fountain of water springing up inside them. It is a
metaphorical way of
telling us that those who accept the salvation Christ offers will have
eternal
life.
John
The Jews thought that Jesus was
referring to the Jewish
temple, but as you read further it becomes obvious he was referring to
His
body.
Jesus makes several I Am
statements in the book of
John alone that are good examples of the symbolic nature of some
scripture.
1.
I am the bread of life (John
2.
I am the light of the world (John
3.
I am the door (John 10:9)
4.
I am the good shepherd (John
5.
I am the vine.
All of these statements tell us
something about the nature
of Jesus, however Jesus
is not a literal door that
opens when we ask to receive Him. He is no more a literal
grape vine than
he is a loaf of bread, and He does not become either.
These are but a few examples out of
many. Just as
Jesus used parables to explain things that were hard for his listeners
to
understand, the Bible uses metaphors to help us understand and
visualize what
we read. Jesus told us to expect this in John 16:25 which
reads, “These
things I have spoken to you in figurative
language…”
Let’s look at the context
for the verses in chapter 6 of
John that are often cited by Catholics. Chapter 6
begins with the
story of Jesus feeding the 5,000 with two small loaves of bread and two
fish. The next day the people Jesus had fed were looking for
Him for the
wrong reasons. We know this from Jesus’ words in
verses 26 and 27 which
read, “You seek Me,
not because you saw the signs, but
because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor
for food
which perishes, but for food which endures to everlasting
life.”
This frames the context for verses
51-56. Jesus
explains to the crowd that they should be seeking eternal
life. In verse
29 He explains that eternal life comes only through belief in
Jesus. He
re-emphasizes this in verse 35 when he says, “I am the bread
of life. He
who comes to Me shall
never hunger, and he who
believes in Me shall never thirst.” Again in verse
40 he says, “And this
is the will of Him who sent Me,
that everyone who sees
the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise
him up
at the last day.”
At this point the Jews he had fed the
previous day started
grumbling. They were angry that Jesus said he came down from
heaven. Jesus responds by once again telling them that only
the person
who believes that Jesus is the Son of God will be saved, and that He is
indeed
the “bread of life”. He uses a metaphor
when he says “your forefathers
ate the manna in the desert, and yet they died, but here is the bread
that
comes down from heaven which a man may eat and not
die.” Remember
He’s repeated several times that
eternal life comes through belief.
Therefore, the bread must be a metaphor just as the manna is a metaphor
used to
describe their forefather’s faith.
Jesus then tells them that "whoever
eats my flesh and
drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last
day". He goes on, “For my flesh is real food and my
blood is real
drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in
me, and I in
him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of
the Father,
so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is
the bread
that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and
died, but he
who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
First Jesus compares himself to the
manna that fell from
heaven and sustained their forefathers as they wandered in the
desert.
Though they were sustained for a time by this manna, they eventually
died.
Jesus is saying that he is the bread that brings eternal
life. This
contrast is used to strengthen his main message from verse 47, which
says,
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me
has everlasting life.”
When Jesus said these things
he had no bread or wine
present with him. He was either speaking figuratively about
believing in
him for eternal life, or he was suggesting cannibalism. If he
were
speaking literally here, he’d be directly contradicting
Genesis 9:4, “You shall
not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”
If you keep reading,
(something Catholics citing these verses choose not to do)
it’s made clear that
Jesus was indeed speaking figuratively.
In verse 60, in response to the
teachings above, the disciples
said just what many who would take this literally might be say
– “This is a hard saying; who can understand
it?”
Jesus responded in verses 61-64 this
way, “Does this offend
you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where
He was
before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh
profits
nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they
are life.”
This bears repeating. The flesh profits nothing.
Jesus was speaking
in spiritual terms. He was not talking about his literal
flesh.
Jesus used the exact same word for flesh (sarx) that he used in
previous verses
when he tells them the flesh profits nothing.
Reading farther, Peter leaves no room
for doubt concerning
what Jesus meant. Jesus asked him if he also wanted to go
away.
Peter responded in verse 68, “Lord, to whom shall we
go? You have the
words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know
that You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God.” Peter
did not say that they had come to know that they must eat
Jesus’ flesh and drink
his blood. Jesus had just told them that the flesh profits
nothing.
Instead Peter understood his main point – believing in Christ
leads to eternal
life.
The contrast in Jesus words here is
plain. Just as
Jesus does several times in scripture, He contrasts the limited and
temporary
benefits of the flesh with the infinite and eternal benefits of the
Spirit.
John, chapter 6 does not deal directly
with the Last
Supper, or with the doctrine of the Eucharist. It has NOTHING
to do with
the Last Supper. Jesus had neither bread nor wine present
during these
verses, and never even mentions wine. Nowhere in these verses
does Jesus
give his disciples any instruction on how to practice
communion. John
does not deal with the Last Supper until Chapter 13. It does
not teach in
chapter 6 or anywhere in the Bible that the disciples must institute a priesthood, consecrate bread
and turn it into His flesh,
or worship his flesh under the appearance of bread.
In addition to their belief in
transubstantiation,
Catholicism teaches that during the Mass and the taking of the
Eucharist, Jesus
is being re-sacrificed for the atonement and forgiveness of our
sins. The
Catholic Catechism puts it this way:
“Holy
Communion separates us from
sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion (the
sacrifice) is
‘given up for us’, and the blood we drink
‘shed for the many for the
forgiveness of sins’. For this reason the Eucharist
cannot unite us to
Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and
preserving us
from future sins.”
“As
sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation of the sins of
the
living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from
God.”
“Every
time this mystery is celebrated, “the work
of our redemption is carried on.”
“The
Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it represents (makes present) the
sacrifice of the Cross.”
First,
it must be pointed out that Jesus is already inside of true believers,
so there
is no need to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have Him
inside of
us.
1
Romans 8:9 “You, however,
are controlled not by the sinful
nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.
And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to
Christ.”
There
is also no need for a frequent, repetitious sacrifice of Christ in
Catholic
churches around the world. Jesus was sacrificed ONCE for ALL
for the
remission of ALL sin. Teaching otherwise directly contradicts
the Word of
God.
Hebrews
Hebrews
10:12, 14, 18 “But when this priest had
offered for all time one
sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.
“because by one sacrifice
he has made perfect
forever those who are being made holy.”
“And
where
these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice
for sin”
The Bible
elucidates here that Christ’s sacrifice was for all people,
for all time, and
covers all sin. There is only one sacrifice and it is
sufficient for the
forgiveness of our sins. We no longer need to continue making
sacrifices
as was required under the Old Covenant. The sacrifice of
Christ was a
one-time event. Communion is a memorial to this event that is
done in
remembrance of the sacrifice Christ made and the promise of His return.
We are to celebrate the Lord’s Supper until He
comes. “For whenever
you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death
until he
comes” (I Corinthians
There is no mention anywhere in the
Bible that the Eucharist
contributes to the work of redemption, that sin is forgiven by the act,
that
Jesus is sacrificed during the Eucharist celebration, that bread and
wine
change when consecrated, and there is no mention of the Mass,
ever. The
Bible does however have something to say about the act of participating
in the
Catholic Eucharist ceremony.
Acts 15:19, 20
“It is
my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the
Gentiles
who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them,
telling them to
abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the
meat of
strangled animals and from blood.”
Would the Apostles have instructed
their followers to
abstain from blood if the Lord’s Supper included the drinking
of Jesus’ literal
blood? You would think the Apostles would have made some kind
of
qualification or exception here.
The Catholic church also teaches that
the Eucharist is an
unbloody sacrifice in which the offering of the Host is the
perpetuation of the
sacrifice of Christ in an unbloody manner to make satisfaction for sins.4 Yet the Bible states
that there is no forgiveness of
sins without the shedding of blood:
Hebrews
The Bible
also
warns often about idolatry, or the worship of man made
things. This
brings up the Catholic practice of displaying the consecrated host in a
monstrance.
A monstrance is a vessel used to
display the host for
adoration. It is usually made of gold or precious
metal. Its
principal part is a circular glass through which the consecrated Host
can be
viewed. Surrounding this circular glass is a metal sunburst
of golden
“rays”. A cross might surmount the
vessel, which stands on a pedestal and
is supported by a circular base. A crescent-shaped device
(lunette) or a
double circle of gold or metal gilt by means of which the Host is held
securely
upright when exposed in the monstrance.
The Catholic Encyclopedia provides
information on how the
monstrance came about. In the Middle Ages
there was no uniform custom in regard to the place where the Blessed
Sacrament
was kept. The Fourth Latern Council and many provincial and
diocesan
synods held in the Middle
Ages require only that the
Host be kept in a secure, well-fastened receptacle. At the
most they
demand that it be put in a clean, conspicuous place. Only a
few synods
designate the spot more closely, as the Synods of Cologne (1281) and of
The
idea of exposing the Blessed Sacrament for veneration in a monstrance
appears to have been first evolved at the end of the thirteenth or the
beginning of the fourteenth century. When the elevation
of the Host at Mass was introduced in the early years of the thirteenth
century, probably as a form of protest against the theological views of
Peter
the Chanter, the idea by degrees took firm hold of the popular mind
that
special virtue and merit were attached to the act of looking at the
Blessed
Sacrament. To such extremes did this prepossession go, that
the seeing of
the Host at the moment of the elevation was judged to be the most vital
part of
attendance at
Moreover, a custom grew up, especially
in
Catholics
believe that Jesus Christ is literally present
inside the monstrance in the form of the host. The Catholic
Church calls
for adoration of the host while it is Jesus. A Catholic
website gives the
following description for Eucharist Adoration:
Catholics
believe that during the Mass which we
attend each week (for some of us daily), the priest (during the
consecration)
speaks these words as he holds the communion host,
"...He took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread,
gave it to
his disciples, and said: Take this all of you, and eat it: this is my
body
which will be given up for you". When the priest says "this
my
body", it is at that instant when, through the miracle of
transubstantiation,
the bread and wine which we offer as the bloodless sacrifice to our
Lord truly
become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. It is His true
Presence in
the form of bread and wine. It is Christ.
Perpetual
Adoration is when the priest
takes a consecrated host, such as the one described above, and places
it in a
monstrance. The monstrance is then placed in front of the
tabernacle or
on the altar of the church or chapel for adoration.
What
do you actually do during adoration?
You may sign up to be an "adorer" which allows you
to schedule
yourself for one or more hours per week to pray before the very
presence of Our
Lord, exposed in the monstrance. It means that you can have some time
alone
with Jesus to recite your favorite prayers, read the bible, contemplate
acts of
faith, hope, charity, thanksgiving, reparation, pray a rosary or do
whatever
type of prayerful devotion that suits you before Our Lord. You can just
sit and
say nothing simply keeping Him company, just as you would with a dear
friend.
Pope John
Paul II
explained Eucharist Adoration this way - “Our communal
worship at Mass must go
together with our personal worship of Jesus in Eucharistic
adoration in
order that our love may be complete." (Pope John Paul II, Redeemer of
Man)
Catholics
will usually deny that they worship the sacrament if they sense
that you know what the Bible says about worshipping things made with
human
hands (idols). However, the Catholic Catechism starts off
paragraph 1378
on page 347 with “Worship of the
Eucharist”. Pope John Paul II also
describes Eucharist worship in a speech delivered to the Forty-fifth
International Eucharistic Congress,
Beloved
priests, religious men
and religious women, most beloved brothers and sisters, it is for me a
motive
of special joy to prostrate myself with you before Jesus in the Blessed
Sacrament in an act of humble adoration, of praise to the merciful God,
of
thanksgiving to the Giver of all that is good, of supplication to Him
whom is
always alive to intercede for us.
The only one
we
should ever be prostrating ourselves before is God. Read the
following:
Exodus
20:4-5 “You shall not
make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is
in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under
the earth;
you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For
I, the Lord your
God, am a jealous God.”
I have
attempted
to supply sufficient evidence to show that Christ does not become
present in a
piece of bread when a priest blesses it. If further proof is
needed,
several disciples in the book of Acts make the statement that God does
not
dwell in temples.
Acts
Hebrews
9:24 “For Christ has
not entered the holy places made with hands…but into heaven
itself, now to
appear in the presence of God for us.”
Acts 17:22-25 “[Paul said], Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your workship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshipped with men’s