Posted on

The Problem With The Eucharist And The True Gospel For The Catholic Church

The Gospel of Jesus Christ codified:

1 Cor. 15: 1-4
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

How come the Roman Catholic’s add works to create their own Gospel?
Read Galatians 5: 3-4
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Read Romans 4: 1-5

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

The Roman Catholic will find these scriptures cumbersome.

Another problem is that the RCC teaches that the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist is the actual body and flesh of Jesus…aka transubstantiation. A big problem when it comes to Bible scripture, Read Leviticus 17: 14:

14 “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’

The significance you ask? How can the Eucharist be the body of Christ? Well, when Jesus spoke his words at the last supper the New Covenant was NOT in effect until Jesus died! Read Hebrews 9: 15-16

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.

They were still under the Old Covenant Law. So refer to Lev 17: 14 where it states “‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh”. How could Jesus have been turning the bread and wine into literal flesh and blood? It would be a direct violation of the Old Testament covenant!

Furthermore, in the Jerusalem Council, there was also a forbiddance of drinking of blood.

Acts 15: 19-20 19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

This was AFTER the New Covenant was established!

Please PRAY for the Roman Catholic Pope followers. They have a different Gospel than the Christian Gospel.

Again here is the true Gospel of Jesus:

1 Cor. 15: 1-4
1Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

God Bless

Brian Mason

Advertisements

About beaconapologetics

A Christian Apologist. A follower of Jesus. A defender of the Christian Faith

8 responses to “The Problem With The Eucharist And The True Gospel For The Catholic Church

  1. Sarah, I really hope you read scripture! I notice that even your profile photo has a rosary on it. Do you realize that that is sorcery?

  2. sarahrachel96b ⋅

    I read your comment and replied to it point for point. I have not made any personal attacks on you. Saying I think you’re wrong is not a personal attack. Saying I think you’re believing a heresy is exactly what you’re doing to me. I am getting really sick of this.

  3. Please explain your statement…”I feel we Catholics have the same Gospel, interpreted differently”.

  4. Yes. I am tired of dealing with re-comments that completely disregard the comment before! Sarah I am sorry however you will simply not read my comments, nor address them fairly without personal attacks I will delete each one of them! This is MY blog and I am sorry but if you can’t reply like an adult or a non-cultist I will happily post and respond to you! God Bless!

  5. sarahrachel96b ⋅

    Did you delete my comment again??

  6. You’re exegesis is enlightening. I’ve never heard an argument against the doctrine of the Eucharist based in Scripture.

    Is there a way to rectify the Institution narratives in the Synoptic Gospels and in St. Paul (Mt. 26:26-30; Mk. 14:22-26; Lk. 22:14-20; 1 Cor. 11:17-24) or the Bread of Life Discourse of John (John 6:22-71, especially where Jesus emphasizes in verse 55, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”)? I feel we Catholics have the same Gospel, interpreted differently. It is a key difference, for if there is no Eucharist, if we do not really eat Jesus as He said, then there is no Mystical Body of Christ. St. Paul said as much earlier in 1 Cor. 10:16-17.

    And I know it might not be a convincing argument, but the Father’s of the Church, writing LONG before a split between Catholic and Protestant Churches, wrote about Christ’s Body and Blood. I’ll just give one example. St. Ignatius of Antioch, martyred around the year 107, wrote to the Christians in Rome, “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 7). To the Smyrnaeans he wrote “They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7).

    If you could speak to this, I think it would clear up some matters.

    God Bless,

    Matthew B. Rose

  7. Sarah, again how is teaching the truth hateful. And I will say again I DO NOT HATE CATHOLICS! I totally disagree with the Apostate Church called Roman Catholicism. My Mother is a Catholic, I certainly don’t hate her. Please drop that line okay? And it is also being very judgmental on your part.
    About your comment on “works” it is not ME saying anything. It is scripture. This is where you get the heresy of transubstantiation:
    Paragraph 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,
    The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).
    I quote your comment: “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” (John 6:48–55)”
    This was not ever indicated by Jesus to take it as a literal statement.
    Jesus also says he is a “door” John 10:7 : 7 So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
    Is he really a door?
    John 15: 1 he says: “1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.”
    Is he a vine?
    John 11: 25 : 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,
    Clearly he speaks in spiritual terms not literal terms. Yes he does speak in literal terms also but obviously not in these scriptures.
    If the Mass is intended to be a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ, according to Roman Catholic theology, the bread and wine become the broken body and shed blood of Christ and are, then somehow the crucified body and blood of Christ, then how can it be possible since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified?
    Once again Sarah I ask that you not say I “hate” anyone. That is an error in judgment on your part. I love you as a Christian and hope that I am opening up your eyes to this heresy?
    God Bless

  8. sarahrachel96b ⋅

    I think you are now writing to be mean to me now. I’ve never met somebody who called themselves a Christian who was so full of hate. 😦

    I don’t know how else to show you that (a) the “works” St. Paul is talking about are specifically the “works of the (Jewish) Law,” not what you are taking them to be (anything else we do at all) and (b) St. Paul himself teaches that there are things we have to do (not “works”) to be saved. The few verses you are taking out of context don’t undo all the verses that contradict them.

    With the Eucharist: So you are admitting, I guess, that it *is* the Body and Blood of our Lord (else why would it be “eating blood” to eat it)?

    Jesus Himself says:

    “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

    So, I guess, you would say, he’s just speaking symbolically. Why then does he not correct the people when they misunderstand him and think he is speaking literally? Rather than telling them it’s a symbol, he repeats it even more explicitly!

    The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6:48–55)

    I don’t understand why you hate Catholics so much. Does Jesus teach us to love our neighbor and our brother and sister? 😦

Comments are closed.