Main |
The Roman Eucharist DilemmaLet's recap, shall we? * Act 15:29 "...abstain... from blood..., and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well..." * Joh 6:63 "...the flesh profiteth nothing..." * Mat 13:34 "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:" * Act 17:24 "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (It is Jesus that made the world [Joh 1:3, Col 1:16], and it is Jesus that is Lord [Act 9:5], therefore, Jesus dwells not in temples, such as bread, which is made by men's hands. * In addition, Rome has contradicted her own doctrines concerning the "bread and wine"... "...The canon enjoining communion in one kind (eg. bread only to the laity) was only passed on June 15, 1415, and that was at a time when the Roman church was without a head. The same council that enacted the decree had deposed Pope John XXIII... This decree of the Council of Constance is a direct contradiction to Roman canon law of the centuries preceding. Pope Leo the Great, inveighing against the Manicheans, wrote in his Homily 41: "They receive Christ's body (which to him of course, was the communion loaf) with unworthy mouth, and entirely refuse to take the blood of our redemption (referring to the cup, according to the Roman interpretation); therefore we give notice to you, holy brethren, that men of this sort, whose sacrilegious deceit has been detected, are to be expelled by priestly authority from the fellowship of the saints." But Pope Gelasius I was stronger yet, for in a letter addressed to the Bishops majoricus and John and embodied in the canon law of the Roman church, he wrote: "We have ascertained that certain persons having received a portion of the sacred body alone abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred blood. Let such persons, without any doubt, since they are stated to feel thus bound by some superstitious reason, either receive the sacrament in its entirety, or be repelled from the entire sacrament, because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege" (Corp. Jur. Can. Decre.3:11-12). And with this agrees the decree of the Council of Clermont, personally resided over by Pope Urban II in 1095: "That no one shall communicate at the altar, without he receives the body and blood alike, unless by way of necessity, or caution... "Doctrines not changeable, A doctrine is a fixed belief, a dogma, such as (to limit it to peculiarly "Catholic" doctrines) the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, purgatory, the sacraments, Transubstantiation. Practices, on the other hand, are changeable. They are customs, ways of doing things. They include, for instance, rituals or dress or habits of prayer that may change over the years: the language of the Mass, the style of priestly vestments, the use or non-use of incense during Mass, making the Sign of the Cross." Found at a Roman Catholic website, no author given. * Furthermore, the rite that Rome practices, has it's origins in paganism... "The historian Durant tells us that the belief in transubstantiation as practiced in the Roman Catholic church, is 'one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion.' (Durant, The Story of Civilization: The Reformation, p.749)... In the scholarly work Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, many pages are devoted to an article 'Eating the god.' In these pages, abundant evidence is given of transubstantiation rites among many nations, tribes, and religions... In Pagan Rome also... Mithraism had a Eucharist..., admits the Catholic Encyclopedia (The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 10, p.404, article: "Eucharist")." -Babylon Mystery Religion, by Ralph Woodrow, page 119. by TomR. Please continue with Adam's Only Alibi by TomR |