THE POPE ON HOMOSEXUALITY

 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, also known as Pope Francis, is from Argentina and is recognized as the first Jesuit pope the Catholic Church has ever had.  He has been in office now for about ten and a half years and his reign has been a highly controversial one.  For one thing, his views on homosexuality have been in dispute.

In an interview with the Associated Press on January 25, 2023, concerning gays, he stated:

“We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are and for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity.  Being homosexual is not a crime.  It is not a crime.” 

The pope does acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin, but He added:

“It’s also a sin to lack charity with one another.”  See this link:

https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/pope-clarifies-remarks-about-homosexuality-and-sin

But let’s unpack his comments to see what the pope is really saying. 

Child of God or Child of the Devil?

First of all:

He says that “we are all children of God.”  But that’s just false.  We are indeed all part of His creation, but so is the devil.  So, by that same reasoning, shouldn’t God be obligated to love the devil and call him His child, as well?  Of course not. 

It is also true that humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), and we have to recognize and respect that truth, but simply being made in the image of God doesn’t stop the majority of humans from missing Heaven (Matthew 7:13-14).

So, no, we are not all children of God.  The apostle John tells us:

“But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.” (John 1:12)

Just because you were born into the human race doesn’t mean you are a child of God.  Those who have NOT received Him nor believed on Him are NOT His children.

No Need to Change?

The second point: 

Pope Francis says that “God loves us as we are.”

Yes, He loves us all in the general sense; that’s why He came to die for the sins of mankind:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” (John 3:16). 

But you are not an object of His affection (in the sense of being His child) if you insist on staying in your sins.  He is longsuffering and loves you enough to chastise you for your sin and to give you time to seek Him.  But Jesus also tells us that we are to repent of (turn away from) our sins (Luke 13:1-5), not look for an excuse to stay in them.  Yet, the pope seems to be “helping” homosexuals to do exactly that – to find an excuse to continue in that lifestyle.

Yes, God loved us “while we were yet sinners, and died for us” (Romans 5:8), but that love can, and will, turn to judgment if we ignore or trivialize God’s commandments.

Twisted Honor

Third point:

The pope said that God loves us “for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity.”

The word “dignity” means “the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect” (Oxford dictionary, online):

https://www.google.com/search?client=avast-a-1&q=dignity+definition&oq=dignity&aqs=avast.1.69i57j0l7.506323276j0j15&ie=UTF-8

But there is nothing “honorable” or “respectable” about unrepentant sin, whether it is homosexuality or any other sin.  What the pope is saying sounds good, but it is deceptive and, due to his worldwide influence, will certainly cause many to end up in Hell.

So You’re Not a Criminal…

Fourth point:

He says that “being homosexual is not a crime.”  That’s true (in America, at least), but you can’t always defend something simply on the basis of it being “legal.” 

Because of the pope’s statements, many people will no doubt reason in their hearts that if it’s not a crime, then it’s ok to do.  But that line of reasoning fails when considering the sin of abortion.  Abortion (until just recently) had not been considered a crime since 1973 when it became legal in the U.S.  Ever since then, the Catholic Church rightly seems to have been officially against it.  Actually, most Catholics would have been up in arms if someone had said that abortion was ok since it was “not a crime.”

Consider also Adolf Hitler’s reign of terror in Germany.  He “legally” established the Holocaust, and it was the law of the land to turn Jews (and others, including homosexuals) over to the authorities to be exterminated.  But the great majority of people today see that as greatly sinful, even if it was “legal” in Germany.

So, you can’t soften the impact that homosexuality has on society simply by saying it’s “not a crime.”  In fact, it is indeed a sin/crime in God’s eyes, just like every other sin. 

True Love Corrects

And the fifth and final point:

Pope Francis said, “It’s also a sin to lack charity with one another.”

Here, the pope is basically saying “You are a Christian and you are supposed to be showing love to gays instead of condemning them!”  This is usually the type of response that people use when their sin is exposed and then they demand, “Don’t you judge me!  Even Jesus said not to judge!”  But we don’t want to see people in error, and see them pay the consequences.  The fact is, if we really love them, we will try to correct them.

Ok, so why does the sin of homosexuality seem to demand more “charity” from Christians than other sins?  It seems that you don’t see nearly as many adulterers, drunkards, or thieves go out of their way to demand that you show them charity, doesn’t it?  I think that this is because they know what’s expected of them and they know that what they’re doing is wrong – that’s why they try to hide it.  But it seems that many in the homosexual community just don’t want to admit the “wrongness” of their lifestyle.  They no longer hide it, and continue in their sin openly, even cheering others on who do the same:

“Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (Romans 1:32)

Yes, Christians are indeed supposed to show mercy and love (charity) to those who are caught up in this sin (or any sin), lest we ourselves fail to live up to God’s standards (1 Corinthians 10:12).  But if there is no repentance involved, there is no obligation for the church to coddle them in their sins.  Again, Jesus gave us a model to follow in dealing with unrepentant people in the church (Matthew 18:15-17).  And we should use this model for all types of sin, homosexuality included.

Many people still don’t believe that the LGBT lifestyle is actually a sin.  So right now I will turn to the Scriptures to demonstrate the sinfulness of homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, the transvestite lifestyle, etc, etc.  I know that there are other designated letters/numbers to add to the LGBT title, but I am simply using “LGBT” to cover all the bases.

Homosexuality is Indeed a Sin

At the risk of sounding cliché, I want to be clear that we should love the sinner, but hate the sin, as the Bible tells us.  I, personally, have a number of friends who are gay/lesbian.  Most of them are basically “good” people (according to worldly standards), some of whom would help you any time you asked.  They are generally nice, friendly and giving.  To their credit, the ones that I am friends with do not try to shove their sinful lifestyle down anyone’s throats.  They mind their own business and mostly remain friendly.  I have had discussions with them concerning their lifestyle.  Some are less open than others, and it grieves me that they don’t always want to listen to the gospel.  But I pray that every single person in that lifestyle who reads this, does so prayerfully and with an open mind, to remove any doubt as to whether God sees homosexuality as sin or not.

Genesis 18:20 – The angels who visited Abraham tell him that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (homosexuality) is great, and they go to visit the city of Sodom.

Genesis 19:1-10 – We all know the story of how God destroys the two cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (and their neighboring cities – Jude 7).  It is obvious what the sin is: the men of the city want to have relations with the two newcomers in town (angels mistaken for men), and they threaten Lot if he doesn’t turn the two over to them.  The city is then completely destroyed and only righteous Lot and his two daughters escape safely.

Some people argue that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but a refusal to be hospitable to the angels.  They’ll say that the people were only guilty of wanting to FORCE themselves onto their targets.  They tell us that it would have been ok if it would have been CONSENSUAL homosexual sex.  But Scripture, taken together as a whole, tells us otherwise.

Leviticus 18:22 – Male to male sex is an abomination to God.

Leviticus 20:13 – Same as above, but adds the death penalty for both of them.  Note that no one is advocating the legal killing of homosexuals today (at least they shouldn’t be).  These civil laws were specifically given for the Jews, and for that specific period in history (the Old Testament).  It does not mean that they must be punished civilly today in the same way as they were back then.  Thank God for grace! 

However, not only was this sin condemned in the Old Testament, but the recognition of its depravity is also carried over into the New Testament.  Yes, God still considers this sin an abomination, just as He did then. 

First of all, Jesus was very clear concerning God’s intention for mankind and sexuality from the beginning:

Matthew 19:3-6

v. 3 - “The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?’ 

v. 4 - “And He answered and said unto them, ‘Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

v. 5 - “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

v. 6 - “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Again, Jesus makes it clear that God’s intention from the very start was for one husband (male) to have one wife (female).  These two would be “one flesh,” joined together by God.  Two males (or two females) will never be considered “one flesh” in the eyes of God, nor can they produce children.  This sin is totally unnatural and would eventually cause society to unravel and crumble, as it has already done in other cultures.

Romans 1:26-27 – Clearly talks about forbidden sexual relations between men with men, and women with women – calling it unnatural /indecent/shameful acts and dishonorable/degrading/vile passions.  It doesn’t get much clearer than this.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – This passage lists homosexuality with many other sins (fornication, sodomy, idolatry, adultery, theft, drunkenness, reviling, covetousness and extortion).  They are deceived and unrighteous and THEY WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.  Their destiny is very clear.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 – Again, homosexuals are listed with the lawless, rebellious, ungodly, sinners, unholy, worldly, murderers (even of parents), sexually immoral, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine.  Note that the sin of homosexuality (considered “mild” today) is in the same camp as murder!  You cannot say it is not sinful!

Jude 7 – It says that Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in sexual immorality/perversion/fornication/unnatural vice and they went after “strange flesh.”  They (the people who engage in this sin) are headed for eternal fire.  Note that Jude 4-14 is speaking of the condemnation of those who rebel against God’s stated design and purpose.  This is exactly what homosexuality is about.

There may be more verses on this issue, but these pretty much sum up God’s attitude on this topic.

The Church is a Hospital for Sinners

It would be different if a person is struggling with the sin of homosexuality, and trying to get out of that lifestyle.  Then we (the church) should have mercy on him and do what we can to help him.  Just like any other sin, a person may occasionally have a lapse and fall into that sin, but if he is indeed a Christian, he will definitely have an inner conflict and be earnestly fighting to overcome that sin. 

But if he loves the sin and doesn’t really care what God thinks about it, willing to stay in it and even do it openly, then that’s a problem.  The rest of the church should approach him and treat him as an outsider (if he remains unrepentant), as Jesus instructed (Matthew 18:15-17). 

But if he is indeed repentant, the rest of the church should lovingly help and encourage him, to get him back on the right path (Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20).

Conclusion

According to one source, the pope wants gays to feel welcome in the (Catholic) Church.  Furthermore, the pope has even told one gay man, “God made you like this.” 

See here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/20/pope-juan-carlos-cruz

We just saw the list of sins of which homosexuals are a part.  Would the pope also say to the murderer, “God made you like this”?  Or to the liar, idolater, or drunkard?  God does not make a person gay, just as he doesn’t make him with any other sinful characteristics.  Sin is something each of us chooses to do.  You can’t blame God for your sinful condition.  If God “made them that way” then why should they feel the need to repent?

It looks as though the pope is trying hard to protect unrepentant homosexuals and let them feel ok about their sin.  There is plenty homosexuality within his own Church and he knows it.  He knows that this is a sin, but it seems to bother him that the Church has always (officially, at least) been against homosexuality.

Again, what the pope is saying is deceptive, and he will have to answer for that.  And so will many others who live in and promote this sin.

 

GREGORIAN CHANT: SACRED OR SINISTER?

Most of us have heard it before.  That weird, ominous chanting in the Catholic Church, sometimes even found in movie scenes.  What kind of music is that?  Why does it sound so haunting?  Does the Catholic Church really use this chanting in its services?

Not only do they use this chanting during Mass, but according to the official Vatican document, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Solemnly promulgated by His Holiness Paul VI on December 4, 1963:

“The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy.” (Chapter VI, paragraph 116 – Emphasis added)

See here:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

So, it is not only used in its services, it is the official music of the Roman Catholic liturgy.

An Interesting Story

Roman Catholic priest Pellegrino Ernetti (1925-1994) was a popular musician/musicologist and physicist in the Church.  He was also the most famous exorcist in Venice in his time.

It is reported that Ernetti went to the Electroacoustics Laboratory of the Catholic University in Milan with fellow priest Agostino Gemelli in 1952 to make a tape recording of Gregorian chants.  They were attempting to filter harmonics from these chants, but the tape recorder microphone kept malfunctioning.  In frustration, Gemelli looked skyward and asked help from his deceased father.  A voice from within the tape recorder answered, “Of course, I shall help you.  I’m always with you.”

It was heard by both of the priests and Gemelli was shocked when he recognized his father’s voice.  He just knew it was his father speaking to him, since the voice used Gemelli’s childhood nickname (which no one else around there could have known).  The two priests then went directly to the pope at that time (Pius XII) to report what happened, and the pope answered him that the recording was “scientific fact,” and that this discovery could be “a cornerstone for building scientific studies which will strengthen people’s faith in the hereafter.”

See these links for different accounts of the story:

https://teakrulos.com/tag/chronovisor/

This Time Traveling Catholic Priest used Music to Talk to the Dead - NewEarth Media

http://www.itmightbepossible.com/2019/10/17/this-time-travel-device-may-have-been-confiscated-by-the-vatican/

https://allaboutheaven.org/observations/father-pellegrino-maria-ernetti-and-father-agostino-gemelli-inadvertently-use-epv-023139/221

Troubling Theology

The pope’s encouragement appeared to have been the impetus for Ernetti to take this “scientific fact” and, with the help of other scientists, (allegedly) invent a sort of “time machine,” or “time viewer” – the Chronovisor. 

You can read the accounts for yourself, but the purpose of this article is not to determine the authenticity or the falsity of this invention.  My intention is to point out that these men were highly trained Catholic priests and they were dabbling in something sinister in the course of their studies of this Gregorian chant.  In this process, they began hearing (and communicating with) the dead by requesting and accepting the priest’s dead father’s “help.”  These priests and the pope should have known better, since Scripture is clear concerning the sin of necromancy and similar sins (Leviticus 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27; 2 Kings 21:6; Isaiah 8:19-22). 

For the record, Scripture is also clear about “the hereafter” (Revelation chapters 19-21), and the pope should encourage Catholics to search the Scriptures if they want to strengthen their faith in life after death, rather than encourage them to flirt with disaster through necromancy.  But maybe that’s expecting too much from a pope who is obligated to promote Catholic concepts.

Equally troubling is Ernetti’s role in this, being a popular exorcist who was allegedly trained to combat spiritual darkness.  Did this “religious expert” not recognize the danger in what the pope said?  But then again, the Catholic Church is fine with the idea of its members communicating with, and praying to, the dead.  But this is certainly not something to flirt with.

Concerning Ernetti’s Chronovisor, Professor of Theology and priest Francois Brune was one of the few people that Ernetti had spoken to about his secret invention.  And Brune was convinced that this invention tied into something called Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), declaring EVP to be “one of the most significant religious events of the century.”  Apparently, he was another priest who was oblivious to the Bible’s warnings.  Yet, Brune went on to write three books about this topic. 

Interestingly, Electronic Voice Phenomena is linked to parapsychology, which is the study of alleged psychic and other paranormal claims.  And this chain of events all started with Gregorian chant.

See this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUaGZ90AVog

Again, this is not something that true followers of Christ should be associated with.

Ties That Bind

Someone could say, “But this is just hearsay.  This whole Chronovisor story could all be based on a lie.”  Ok, so let’s assume that this was all fabricated and there never was any “time viewer.”  But that’s not the point.  Regardless, this whole Gregorian chant study still ties into the realm of necromancy.  It seems that Gregorian chant was the doorway to all this confusion and spiritual danger from the start. 

It is also interesting that this music is often used by Hollywood and the film industry, especially in horror movies!  Now, it is true that Hollywood has certainly been known to abuse their cinematic liberty at times, but their choice of Gregorian chant in some of these creepy, haunting films is no coincidence.  Hollywood knows scary music when they hear it!  In the movies, music is almost always used to “set the mood,” and choosing Gregorian chant for this is not an accident.  This music is often a setting for some dark themes.  According to one source:

“Some chants have become standard melodies for films, in particular, the ‘Dies irae’ from the Roman Catholic Mass for the Dead. The ‘Dies irae’ is, in fact, one of the most frequently heard chants in film, used in television theme songs, commercials, and even a Christmas film (It’s a Wonderful Life). Death, danger or the supernatural are invariably part of the story or visual situation where it is used.” (Plainchant in Motion Pictures: The "Dies irae" in Film Scores, by Linda Schubert, p. 207)

“Perhaps more importantly, the meanings that have been coded into the ‘Dies irae’ over the last two centuries are, as we shall see, not tranquil but dramatic, disturbing, and threatening.” (ibid., p. 208)

“However sinister its associations in popular usage, the ‘Dies irae’ retains this ‘simple’ quality as well—which may make it all the more disturbing. Simplicity is often associated with innocence and lack of care. The ‘Dies irae's’ associations with death make it anything but carefree, and its connection with demons and the supernatural do not permit innocence. Yet an eerie impression of simplicity remains. One can argue that an audience does not need to know anything about chant to be affected by a score and to appreciate a film. On the other hand, film composers are aware of the associations attached to the pre-existent music they use.” (ibid., p. 208 – Emphasis in original)

See this link:

https://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/flor.15.011

So, to recap, this source is telling us that Gregorian chant, especially the tune from ‘Dies irae,’ is indeed used in many of Hollywood’s movies.  Topics like death and danger are “invariably” a part of the story, and rather than being tranquil, its message is dramatic, disturbing, threatening, and even sinister.  And furthermore, it often appears to have a “connection” with demons and the dark supernatural world.  Hollywood is indeed very aware of Gregorian chant’s influence.

Relaxing and Peaceful?

Some claim that Gregorian chant is supposed to be peaceful and it relieves stress and relaxes those who hear it, but I think it is a false peace.  Personally, something in me cringes when I hear this type of “music.”  To me, it’s haunting, sinister and downright creepy.  Nothing “cheery” or relaxing about it.   

Furthermore, there are many websites that incorporate Gregorian chant in their occult and/or eastern mysticism themes.  Apparently, they see something in Gregorian chant that links to their dark views.  This connection is interesting and should not be ignored.

Excuses

Someone could say, “But that’s exactly what the “Dies irae” is all about in the Catholic Church… death!  It is a tune that specifically relates to the Mass for the dead.  Of course it is going to be eerie!”

But isn’t a Catholic funeral about celebrating hope?  Isn’t the Catholic who dies almost always referred to as now being in Heaven, or at least Purgatory (which promises Heaven)?  If he was a faithful Catholic, why would you want this disturbing and ominous-sounding music to accompany his passage into eternity?  Shouldn’t it be more upbeat and encouraging?  Why use chanting which has a connection with the demonic if it is supposed to suggest one’s glorious journey into Heaven?  No, the general feeling doesn’t seem to be about the Christian’s victory in death, but rather an ominous, foreboding presence.  The music seems to be more about despair than eternal life in Heaven.

The Catholic might respond, “But the ‘Dies irae’ is not the only chant used in the Catholic Church.  There are plenty others that are uplifting.”

Yeah, and there are plenty other of these Gregorian chants that are often used in creepy and disturbing websites, as well.  It just seems to have too many ties with eastern mysticism and possibly the occult and other strange things, so I wouldn’t be bragging about it, much less make it “official” church music.

Conclusion

Music does indeed have a “power” behind it.  David would play the harp for King Saul, soothing him and chasing the demonic forces from him (1 Samuel 16:23).  On the other hand, we know that some forms of music can invite demonic forces.

Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).  So, how music affects a person, how it makes him behave, is a very good indicator of the source of any music. 

For many, Gregorian chant encourages them to stay in the Catholic Church.  That alone makes me seriously question the “goodness” of that type of music.  If the Catholic Church only played such music every once in a blue moon, that would be different.  But Gregorian chant is the official music in the Catholic liturgy.  That causes me great concern, since the very existence of this blog is to warn of the false teachings of this Church.  If something keeps you in the Catholic Church, then I would have to seriously question its validity and it would be a good reason to reject that something.

The Bible does not contain a list of all songs that are godly, nor a list of all those that are ungodly.  God expects us to use discernment in such endeavors.  Maybe one’s view of music is somewhat subjective, but biblical discernment goes a long way (Hebrews 5:12-14).  Just because Gregorian chant may have some spiritual words and phrases in it does not make it godly.

I would certainly encourage Catholics to immerse themselves in Scripture and learn to exercise discernment.  I think they would find that Gregorian chant is not the “sacred” music they think it is.

THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

 

Well folks, this is the last of the seven Catholic sacraments, and today we’re talking about what Catholics call the sacrament of “Holy Communion,” or the “Holy Eucharist.” 

This is the solemn ceremony where the Catholic priest blesses the bread and wine and it supposedly becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.  The priest then offers it to the members of the congregation for their spiritual nourishment.

I have addressed my objections to this topic before in great detail elsewhere on this blog.  See these links for detailed discussions and the ramifications involved:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/10/eucharist-part-1.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/11/eucharist-part-2.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/01/access-denied.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2021/02/eucharistic-wonders-miracles-or.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-catholic-time-machine.html

Source and Summit

How important is the Eucharist to Catholics?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

“The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’  The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch." (CCC #1324 – Emphasis added)

Notice that all the other sacraments and “all ecclesiastical ministries and works” within the Catholic Church tie in with, and point to, the Eucharist.

As we can see, the Catholic Eucharist is extremely important in the Church.  In fact, it is EVERYTHING to them because it is the ultimate Catholic sacrament.  This is because:

“The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as ‘the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.’  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’”…  (CCC #1374 – Emphasis in original).

Did you get that?  The wafer that the Catholic priest consecrates and gives to the members of the Church to eat is considered the actual BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY of Jesus Christ!  Yep, you’re eating His body and you’re eating His soul!  Literally!  Not sure how that works, but if you don’t believe that, this is what happens:

“If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon I)

That’s right.  If you don’t believe their teaching on the Eucharist, you are under the Catholic Church’s anathema.  Anathema means that you will experience the severest and gravest form of excommunication, where you are eternally condemned to Hell, unless and until you do the required penance, to the Catholic Church’s satisfaction.  You can find this definition in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Anathema.”

This is one reason why, in my first article on the Eucharist years ago on this blog, I said that this sacrament is either a very good thing, or a very bad thing.  If it is what the Church says it is, then it is the most wonderful sacrament of all and we (Protestants included) should all line up to enthusiastically “receive Jesus” by eating Him in the form of the Eucharist.  But if it is not what they say it is, if what they’re eating is not actually Jesus, and what they are worshipping is a mere piece of bread, they are guilty of outright idolatry, a severe sin throughout the Old and New Testament (e.g., 1 Kings 21:25-26; Jeremiah 7:16-19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 10:14).

So, if you believe this bread and wine is the ACTUAL, LITERAL, PHYSICAL Jesus, you’d better be absolutely sure that it is what they claim it is, and not just take someone’s word for it.  You’d better be certain as to whether it is a biblical concept or not!

Absent Does Not Mean Present

Again, the claim is that the bread and wine are literally Jesus.  It says that His physical presence is with us today.  In fact, they call it the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist (CCC # 1378).  But note that the Bible is clear that Jesus’ physical presence here on earth is no longer the case:

Jesus therefore said, “Let her alone, in order that she may keep it for the day of My burial.  For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have Me.” (John 12:7-8 – Emphasis added)

So tell me, what did Jesus mean when He said this?  In what sense do we NOT have Jesus today?  Does this passage mean that He is not here spiritually?  No, I think everyone would agree that we always have Him in a spiritual sense, right?  For example:

 

… and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world (Matthew 28:20).

 

So, John 12:7-8 above is not talking about His presence in a spiritual sense.  So, again, if it is not in the spiritual sense, then in what way is He NOT present with us?

 

Now, Catholics will claim that He is present in a “sacramental” sense, but there is absolutely nothing in Scripture to suggest this concept.  The word “sacramental” (as an adjective) seems to be a conveniently flexible term in Catholicism, in fact, too flexible to have any real meaning.  The truth is, the whole idea of sacraments and “sacramental presence” is foreign to Scripture.  See here:

 https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

 

So that leaves a physical vacancy.  Jesus is no longer here physically.  And if that’s true, the Catholic Church is wrong about the “Real Presence.”

 

Again, in John 16:10, Jesus says:

And concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me.

How do we “no longer behold Jesus”?  Physically, of course.  He ascends to the Father and we don’t see Him anymore (at least, not until He returns).  It’s very simple.  Although Catholics will say that we see Jesus in the Eucharist, the Bible says that we don’t see Him in the Eucharist, i.e., we no longer behold Him.

Furthermore, in John 17:11, Jesus, when praying to the Father and about to leave, says:

And I am no more in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to Thee…

If He is no longer in the world (after His ascension), then, by definition, He is not physically here, so He can’t physically be in the Eucharist.

You Can’t Handle His Presence!

Ok, another point I want to make is that the Catholic Church makes extreme claims, and then later has to backtrack or play word games when called out on it.

One very unsustainable claim they make is that according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained” in the Eucharist.  And furthermore, “because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.” (CCC #1374) 

By the way, it seems that some Catholics are hesitant to claim that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist.  But terms like “the whole Christ,” “entirely present” and the “fullest sense” would appear to indicate otherwise.

But think about this.  What would happen to us if we were truly exposed to “the whole Christ” in all His glory?  The truth is, if we were ushered into His presence in the “fullest sense,” we would not be able to endure it, UNLESS we were in our heavenly bodies. 

Again, that level of exposure to Jesus Christ could only safely happen when we are in our glorified bodies.  Only then could we be able to endure His absolute fullness and glory.  Some saw Jesus in His new body right after His resurrection, but that was not the same thing.            

Why do I say this?  In the book of Revelation, the apostle John said:

And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me…

And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead… (Revelation 1:12, 17)

Folks, THIS is what happens when a mere human sees “the whole Christ” in the “fullest sense.”  Even John, probably the closest friend of Jesus on earth, fell as a dead man in His “fullest” presence.  John was utterly stunned and unable to even look at Jesus.  He was overwhelmed, virtually paralyzed, by the majesty of the Son of God.  If the Eucharist was all that Catholics say it is, no man would be able to stand before it.  Therefore, they are promoting a false teaching.

So What is the Purpose of Communion?

Catholics will always point to John chapter 6 when discussing the Eucharist.  They’ll say that when Jesus said to “eat My flesh” and “drink My blood” (John 6:50-58), He was talking about the Communion service (Eucharist).  But when Jesus said this, He was simply speaking of “coming to Him” and “believing in Him,” as is plain in a previous verse in the same chapter (John 6:35).  This is obviously symbolic language and it was setting the stage for the rest of the passage.

The truth is, Communion is simply a holy memorial:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luke 22:19 – Emphasis added)

The Catholic Church does rightly believe that there is a “memorial” aspect in celebrating Communion, but they also falsely believe that the priest’s consecrating of the bread and wine “actualizes” the event of Calvary (CCC #1104). 

 

The word “actualize” means “to make actual” or “to make something a reality.”  They also claim that the Eucharistic ritual “re-presents” (makes present) the event of Calvary.  That’s why they claim that the victim of the Mass (Jesus) and the victim of Calvary (2000 years ago) is “one and the same” (CCC #1367; Council of Trent, Session 22, Chapter 2).  The Eucharistic sacrifice (supposedly) brings the event of Calvary to the here and now.  The Catholic Church reads way too much into the biblical text, instead of letting it speak for itself.  But of course, this is all a “paschal mystery,” something that we non-Catholics just can’t seem to grasp.  Very often, when it comes to things that Catholics can’t verify biblically, it appears that another “mystery” is born in Catholic theology.  Convenient, huh?

 

But getting the benefits of Calvary is not “eating and drinking Jesus’ body and blood.”  Nor do these benefits include time-travel, where God makes the events of Calvary present (CCC # 1104, 1362, 1364, 1366), as though a past event is literally transferred into the present.

 

No, the benefits of Calvary are eternal salvation and a sanctified life, and these are simply received by faith, not by a ritual done by a priest of any kind.

 

One Sacrifice Offered, One Time, By One Person

 

Here’s another instance where the Catholic Church plays word games.  Catholics are sometimes accused of sacrificing Jesus over and over when the Eucharist is celebrated.  Of course, they deny this and claim that they are instead re-presenting that same one-time, once-for-all sacrifice at Calvary. 

 

Even though that may sound good, it cannot be the case.  If the Catholic priest is indeed offering a sacrifice (as they claim), it is not a legitimate one.  Why?  Because only Jesus Christ, Himself, was able to make this one-time offering/sacrifice of Calvary, and He will never, ever, do it again, much less offer it daily (Hebrews 10:11-12 – See CCC #1389).  That, by definition, is what a one-time offering means.  It was offered once and it was only offered BY JESUS.  No man can rightly claim that he is offering, re-offering or re-presenting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  It cannot and will not be done.  This Catholic “Eucharistic sacrifice” is not Jesus.  It is a REPLACEMENT of Him, a false offering (Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:2, 10).

 

Using fancy verbs like “re-presenting” doesn’t help the Catholic case.  Actually, the verbs “sacrifice,” “offer,” and “present” are all synonyms in the Bible in the context of sacrifices.  They all mean basically the same thing and they are used interchangeably.  So you can’t say, “I’m not sacrificing Him again in the Eucharistic ritual, I’m only ‘re-presenting’ Him.”  But that ends up being the same thing.  Again, the words are interchangeable.  To “re-present” is to “re-offer” is to “re-sacrifice.”  There is no difference.

 

If a person successfully offered payment for an item, there would be no other offer.  The payment has been given and the debt is already paid for.  The transaction is completed.

 

Likewise, the event of Calvary is a successful payment/offering by Jesus to pay for the sin-debt of mankind.  Why would there ever be another offering of the same thing, since it is a completed transaction?   If something is paid for, there is no need for anyone else to present, RE-present or RE-offer that same payment. 

 

Stop and think, though: If the priest’s RE-offering or RE-presenting of payment is actually valid, that would mean that the original payment was illegitimate!  Would the Catholic Church ever admit that Jesus’ payment at the cross was invalid or illegitimate?  Because if the Eucharistic sacrifice is valid, then Jesus’ payment is indeed null and void.  The implications of this are blasphemous and totally unacceptable!

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the true biblical Communion service is not to point to the elements of the bread and wine.  That would be missing the whole point. It is not to physically “eat Jesus.”  The purpose of Communion is to use these signs/elements to remember the event of Calvary with heart-felt thankfulness to God for what Jesus did.  It is to point to the One who gave Himself willingly on the cross, who lovingly paid the penalty for mankind’s sins.  And that sacrifice is finished! (John 19:30)  The whole Communion service is about God’s offering to us, not about the church’s offering to God.

 

Well, folks, that’s the end of this brief address of this series on the seven Catholic sacraments.  Much more could be said and I know that many Catholics will disagree with me on at least some of my thoughts.  But I have endeavored to keep things biblically and logically sound, and I hope that this has been food for thought.