Can The Eucharist Save You?
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
When sharing with Catholics the wonderful news about the finished work of Jesus on the cross, one of the most tragic deceptions that many of them have blindly bought into is their worship and idolization of the eucharist.
To break bread for any Christian is something we all cherish and take very seriously, especially after reading Paul serious admonition not to come to the Lord's table with any unconfessed sin in our hearts (1 Cor. 11:23-34.)
However communion is only for those of us that have already been saved and forgiven, to do in remembrance of the price that Christ paid to save us from the wrath of God.
In John 6, which I cover point-by-point in the follow-up article, Jesus makes it very clear that when a person eats His flesh and drinks His blood, they have (present tense) everlasting life. (See John 6:54.)
With the above verse proving that to eat the Lord's body meant one has everlasting life (present tense), affirms that this is no mere reference to sitting down and breaking bread each week. (I have more to say on this later.)
The author John Armstrong, wrote the following:
"In ancient ritual blood sacrifices (in pagan religions) the worshipper must consume the blood of the victim as a sacrifice. This idea was incorporated in such manner that now the communing believer takes the bread (the body of Christ) into his own flesh in this the supreme and highest moment of Christian worship. This becomes the central mystery of the Christians faith and practice eating the body of Christ." (A View Of Rome, p. 56)
Up until the 12th century, many popes and councils had differing views as to the necessity of the mass. For example, Gregory I placed an anathema and automatic excommunication on anyone who didn't participate in this unbiblical and non-bloody sacrifice.
Yet Innocent III said that all those who taught it was necessary and essential to attend mass, would be excommunicated (also some church "fathers," like the above popes, believed in the eucharist being literal, divine and essential to salvation, while others considered it only to be symbolic and no more than that.)
Many Catholics and high Anglicans believe that the priest has magical powers to change a wafer and wine (not unleavened bread and fruit juice, both being Scriptural) into the literal body and blood of Christ, and the Scripture that is commonly misused is John 6:51-63.
This kind of Biblical interpretation is called letterism. The concept is quite simple: every passage in the Bible (if one is not careful) ends up being interpreted literally, resulting in many problems occurring, if this is taken to the extreme.
Catholics along with the Mormons have also fallen prey to this theological blunder.
For example, in John 6:54, the Lord speaks to His Jewish disciples (never forget the historical and religious context) and tells them:
"Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath [present tense] eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
(No Catholic is ever allowed in their lifetime to have any assurance that all their sins are forgiven and should they die at any moment, would they go straight to be with the Lord, even though the above text is crystal clear that salvation is eternal and given to those that eat His flesh and drink His blood. Once again, Rome is proven to be teaching falsehoods on matters of one's salvation.)
May I remind the reader that Jewish culture forbade drinking blood (animal or human), before the law, during the law and after the law (Lev.17:11-14), so obviously Jesus would not teach against His own Law, while the Jews were still living under the law (Acts 15:28-29.)
Peter, some years after this event, would say: "I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean" (Acts 10:14.) Yet, according to Rome, he and all the disciples had done so during their time with Jesus. Peter, it would seem didn't know what he was talking about!
With Catholic doctrine desperately needing to affirm John 6 as being literal, I find it rather odd that other verses such as Matt. 5:29: "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee," is not interpreted literally but metaphorically. (One church leader Origen did actually mutilate himself, when reading this Scripture.)
So how should Matt. 5 be correctly interpreted?
Jesus is warning His Jewish audience about the drastic consequences of unrepentant sin (Rom. 12:1 should be cross-referenced here.) Correctly, nobody within Catholicism or Protestantism today takes this verse to be literal but spiritualises it, which of course is the only correct way to exegete it.
And what about John 6? Well, Scripture with Scripture, and we read how the some of the unbelieving Jews, when hearing about eating and drinking Christ's body later complained (vs. 61.)
This is reminiscent of what happened with Moses and his followers, when they were still wandering in the wilderness (Ex. 16:2.)
Also from the same chapter, we read about the "Bread of Heaven," which God gave as a test to Israel to see who would obey His laws or not.
John 6 comes to its completion, with the false believers departing from Jesus, even though He made it clear His words weren't literal in vs. 63, but they had already made their minds up to "walk no more with Him," and with this Christ allowed them to depart (John 6:66; 1 John 2:19.)
So then how should one understand what Jesus means when He says they must eat Him and drink Him? The most sensible and logical conclusion for any honest and open-minded person to come to would be to understand this as being metaphorical. Therefore the Lord underlying the fact that He would soon die, taught His followers that they would need to partake of this spiritual memorial, i.e., believe in Him, if they wanted to be saved (John 1:12.)
Two other things should be said about the eucharist:
1) If receiving it (pre-Vatican II) warrants eternal life, then grace through faith alone is thrown out and works is taught along side for salvation; something that the cults believe, and please also remember that communion hadn't yet been officially instituted by Christ.
2) Today's Catholic church (post-Vatican II) no longer holds to the urgent need that recipients of communion will be saved; for they state that Muslims and Jews will be saved without any faith or repentance in Jesus Christ.
Other Scriptures like "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst" (John 4:14); "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever" (John 6:51); also "I am the door" (John 10:7) and finally "God will cover you with his feathers" (Ps. 91:4), are never taken literally by any sane person (letterism) but are understood figuratively, within the loving understanding that God does and will look after His own, and will feed those that believe in Him spiritually.
Thus redeemed sinners will never thirst again if they feed on Him and His word daily. And we know that God is not a bird (Ps. 91:4), but is a Spirit (John 4:24) and is also invisible (Col. 1:15.)
Later in the Bible and we read how Paul ridiculed his pagan audience in Acts 17:25, when he totally dismantled their nonsensical belief that:
"Neither is [God] worshipped with men's hands [out goes transubstantiation], as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."
One should also read chapter 19:26, 27 where Paul once again reiterates this position, and what follows from his pagan crowd? Much persecution and violence. Why? Because they, like Rome, know that Paul's rebuke of their foolish notion of creating gods, is very bad for business (like church attendance for Rome.) How times never change.
Lastly on this note, 1 Cor. 8:8 is the final clincher that eating food doesn't save us:
Each of these verses totally obliterates the warped view of the Catholic eucharist being a Biblical doctrine.
And may I briefly share with the reader, the following and most profound statement made by Anne Asken, while been tortured for Christ, by a Catholic bishop, for failing to submit to the mass:
"I have read that God made man, but that man can make God, I have never read."
Anne was only 25 years old, when she was later taken out and burnt alive!
In Peter Ruckman's two-volume set on church history, we read the following madness on how Rome deals with a wafer:
"If a Catholic gets the wafer (not unleavened bread) stuck in his false tooth, he is to scrap "Jesus" out of his mouth with a knife or finger, dip Him in water and drink Him...If a person vomits up the wafer, they must pick up their vomit."
(See also Rev. R.P. Blackeney, Manual of Romanish Controversy, 1851; The Roman Missal, Article III, No. 7, Article X, Nos. 5, 12, 14.)
One last example of this type of wooden interpretation would be when the Mormons take 1 Cor. 15:29 literally:
"If the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"
After reading this passage, the founder of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith (who was also a freemason and warlock) started baptising dead people. This form of exegesis is sheer madness for when did a dead unrepentant person ever benefit from being baptised after they died?
(The Mormons have been known to baptise dead people at random, regardless of their religious backgrounds, and then add the names of such people to their own private computer, which incidentally has billions of names of people throughout the whole world dating back many years, in their many underground tunnels in Utah.)
1 Cor. 15:29 simply means that if Christ had not died and then been raised from the dead, then our baptism and faith in Him, may just as well have occurred when we were dead.
Armstrong once again offers the following warning:
"If you are a practising Catholic. You are to say amen when the priests says 'The body of Christ.' This amen is Hebrew for it is so; this is the body of Christ! The Catholic Church requires you to refrain from talking the communion if you do not agree with her. You cannot escape the force of Scripture upon your own conscience. You must decide this utterly serious matter before God and His Word" (p. 60.)
For non-Catholics, the whole concept of what the mass is, was clearly defined and explained by John F. Whealon, Catholic Archbishop of Hartford:
"Sacrifice is the very essence of religion. And it is through sacrifice that union with the Creator can be perfectly acquired. It was through sacrifice that Christ Himself was able to achieve this for man. It is only through the perpetuation [continuing] of that sacrifice that Christ Himself was able to achieve this for man."
This part of Scripture is partially true, apart from the perpetual aspect. And then Whealon goes on to say:
"What makes the mass the most exalted of all sacrifices is the nature of the victim, Christ Himself. For the mass is the continuation of Christ's sacrifice which He offered through His life and death. Jesus then is the priest, the offerer of the sacrifice. But Christ was not only the priest of this sacrifice (of the cross), He was also the victim, the very object of this sacrifice. The mass is thus the same as the sacrifice of the cross. No matter how many times it is offered, nor in how many places at one time, it is the same sacrifice of Christ. Christ is forever offering himself in the mass."
(Note: the mass is performed about 200,000 times daily all around the globe.)
The Council of Trent, which is still binding, had the following to say to anyone who didn't agree with them on this:
"If anyone shall say that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most Holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the mass let him be accursed."
Well before I respond to the curses promised by Rome, may I remind the reader of one very important point: if the mass is a continuation of the work of Calvary, than Catholicism has a rather difficult problem. For the Bible says, "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb. 9:22.) The mass is a non-bloody sacrifice. The sacrifices in the Old Testament temple were bloody. Jesus' death was very bloody. The mass is not. Therefore, according to Biblical theology, the mass is nullified and totally worthless!
Now as far as the 125 curses, on all non-Catholics are concerned (please see Trent, 1546), all I would say is this: I shall return such curses, back to Rome!
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the mass is not needed at all. For we read this in the book of Hebrews, something that the Catholic Bible has worryingly omitted from their translation:
"But this man [Jesus], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore" (Heb. 7:24-28.)
"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb. 9:12.)
This monumental Scripture, which the Apostle Paul also affirmed in his epistle to the Romans (6:10), has a most beautiful connotation to it. Such verses would echo the words of the Lord, as He hung naked on Calvary's cross, "it is finished" (John 19:30.)
What further need do we have to emphasise that the sacrificial aspect of the Catholic mass is totally wasted in the church of Rome. He has paid the price for the sin of the world (John 1:29.) And no church, group, body, priest, vicar, guru, prophet or god has the right or even the audacity to say or teach otherwise.
Post Vatican II
When the new mass was introduced for the first time in the Sistine Chapel, most prelates hated it, with figures of seventy-eight in favour and two hundred and seven against.
Cardinal Ottaviani, stated that twenty heresies were found in it.
Cardinal Heenan of Westminster said of it:
"The old boast that the Mass is everywhere the same....is no longer true."
Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the man credited with watering down the mass in time and "reverence," was later demoted to apostolic delegate to Iran (only 2% of this Muslim country are Catholic.)
Bugnini resisted this public demotion by Paul VI, but cardinal Oddi persuaded him to accept. Bugnini would later be quoted at the end of his life as saying, when asked about the reforms that were included in the new mass, we didn't realise how easy it would be.
Interestingly the Latin term for New World Order is Novus Ordo, which is the same term for the new mass.
It should also be stated that because of his alleged statement, some have accused Bugnini of having a hidden agenda.
Some Catholic traditionalists put three allegations forward:
1) He was a freemason
2) He did not fully believe in the eucharist
3) Believed man is made without God, and does not need God
With these allegations held against him, many to this day still remain unhappy and furious that such a man was given the brief to carry out a full-scale "amputation" upon their blasphemous Tridentine Mass.
One should also say however, that he bitterly denied ever being a freemason; something that Paul VI came to suspect after Bugnini had placed the finished document on the pontiff's desk.
Evidence that he embraced secularism, was offered by cardinal Joseph Malula, Archbishop of Kinshasha, Zaire.
Yet according to an interview given to the Catholic magazine Inside the Vatican, in May 1996, cardinal Oddi not only came to his defence, but said the following:
"I can swear that he was not a freemason. I remain convinced that these accusations were made up by someone in his office, the Congregation for Divine Worship, who wanted to eliminate him."
With Oddi categorically denying any knowledge of Bugnini's involvement with the freemasons, Abbot Boniface, in the same edition of May 1996, said the following about such allegations:
"I have no evidence whatsoever of that. But there was a large group of freemasons in the Curia in those days, so it is possible that he was one of them. There have always been freemasons among the high-ranking prelates of the Church since Pius IX."
In more recent years, a document came out of the Vatican saying that membership in masonic societies was permitted for Catholics.
For those wanting to see a more in depth look at this, please click here to see my "Is The Mass Sacred Or Satanic" video.
So in answer to my initial question, no the ecuharist cannot save you. Only genuine faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ saves sinners.