Catholic Ritual



+ + +



Even a Protestant

Bible Shows Catholic Ritual &

Liturgy to Be Exactly What God Has

Commanded in the Worship of His True Church

Everywhere in Heaven & on Earth for

All Eternity



“For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.” (Malachias 1:11 DRC)


+ + +


Intended by the Author of This Article

For the Greater Glory of the Adorable Triune Catholic God,

For the Worship of the Sacred Heart of King Jesus Christ of Nazareth,

For the Praise of the Immaculate Heart of Queen Mary, the Blessed Ever-

Virgin Mother of God,

Unto the Protection & Propagation of the Holy Catholic Church

& Her Most Precious Heavenly Dogmas,


Under the Euphonious Patronage of St. Cecilia,

Virgin & Martyr.







Domine, non est exaltatum cor meum, neque elati sunt oculi mei. Neque ambulavi in magnis, neque in mirabilibus super me. Si non humiliter sentiebam, sed exaltavi animam meam; sicut ablactatus est super matre sua, ita retributio in anima mea. Speret Israel in Domino, ex hoc nunc et usque in saeculum.” (Psalmus CXXX, Vulgata)



St. Francis of Assisi, Humble Seraph of God, pray for your children that they may not fail the test but suffer the malice of the wicked gladly and so gain the Crown of Life!





The words you are about to read are Section 10 of a long rebuttal to a Protestant heretic who is well-known to me. The rebuttal nears completion, but I offer this section now for public perusal in the hope that other heretics and worldlings may profit by it unto Salvation, and that those who are truly Catholic may more fully comprehend the celestial foundations of their Faith and thus find the wherewithal to better defend their Singular Religion against the attacks of the children of the devil.


Anybody who values Sacred Scripture can benefit from what follows. However, I focus upon ‘Evangelic Protestants’ --- what others usually call ‘Protestant Evangelicals’. I eschew the latter name since the former is grammatically simpler and since, in linking together the words of a descriptive title for something that has taken years to develop, it makes more sense in English to build from the chronologically first thing as the last word in the title, with additional descriptions arising from the changes of later years put in front of that last word. That is to say, ‘Evangelic Protestant’ is more straightforward. Likewise, I call Evangelic Protestants in the Charismatic Movement by the name of ‘Charismatic Evangelic Protestants’. For the original Protestants began in the 16th century. Then came Evangelics in the late 1800s. Finally, Charismaticism took shape in the 1960s, although its diabolic appeal hopscotched denominational boundaries right from the get-go.


By a similar, albeit not identical, reasoning, Catholics have been called ‘Catholic’ since the first century. ‘Roman Catholic’ did not become common until after 1517 as a means to distinguish real Catholics from those early Protestants who still stubbornly held to the name of ‘catholic’ long after they had ceased to be the genuine thing. This distinction worked because no one but a real Catholic submitted to the Papacy of Rome. Now, with the Great Apostasy in full bloom and members of the Vatican II Church --- who are not Catholic but follow a ‘new order’ in things --- also usurping the name of ‘catholic’ and even ‘roman catholic’, confusion reigns. Nevertheless, I must use these titles for real Catholics everywhere lest apostate lies trample the truth unopposed and confusion reign the more. Let it be understood clearly then: real Catholicism is that Faith of the “One Church” which is “Holy, Roman, Catholic & Apostolic” [Pope Innocent III’s Eius exemplo in the 30th Edition of Denziger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, Paragraph 423], not the false religion perpetrated by the antipopes since Vatican II. The same goes for the Novus Ordo ‘mass’ prevalent throughout the world today. This is not the Mass to which I refer in these pages. Mine is the Catholic Mass of the True Church of All Ages.


Incidentally, my relentless citation of Sacred Scripture is not meant to champion the Bible as a final authority for one’s religious beliefs, nor is my quoting from a Protestant translation meant to encourage people to trust in that translation. While a priceless gift from Heaven, the Bible saturates the text below because conservative Protestants claim to respect its words. And I quote from the King James Version (KJV) because it is a classic Protestant rendering and hence impossible for heretics to impugn when it plainly upholds the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, I warn everyone to beware of the many pernicious errors that fill heretical bibles from one end to the other. The only good reason for trolling their pages is to gather bait whereby souls might be fished into the Ark of Salvation, and then only if thoroughly armed against the evil that lies coiled between their covers.


Finally, a word about the person to whom my rebuttal is addressed. For the present his identity must remain generally unknown. Nevertheless, it would be awkward to wipe the text clean of every reference to the recipient. I have therefore replaced this person’s name with an anonymous ‘X’. When it becomes necessary or permissible to broadcast his identity, I shall. May anything which is true or praiseworthy in this work be attributed to the efforts of the Blessed Trinity. And may anything that is false or blameworthy be laid firmly in accusation at my own wayward feet.




+ + +  10. Re Catholic Ritual  + + +


+ + +  10a. The Order of Melchisedec  + + +


You declare:


“Nowhere can you find the trappings and ritual and liturgy of the Roman Catholic Faith in the teachings of Christ nor in the Epistles by any of the writers of the New Testament.” {X’s Email to the author on 8 July 2003, Paragraph 23}


To which a scripturally-based man responds:


Does the Bible condemn Roman Catholic ritual, or does it not?


No, it does not.


Does the Bible tell us that Heaven & the Church practice certain rituals, rituals that just happen to be perfectly identical to what the Roman Catholic Church practices, while for the most part they are categorically rejected by Evangelic Protestants?


Yes, it does. The Apostle Paul informs us regarding the Priesthood of Jesus:


“For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, ‘Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.’ (Psalm 2:7) As he saith also in another place, ‘Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.’ (Psalm 110:4. See also Genesis 14:18-20 for Melchisedec’s only other mention in Sacred Scripture.) Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.” (Hebrews 5:1, 4-6, 8-10 KJV)


Once again we find it necessary to “obey” Christ in order to inherit His “eternal salvation”. (Hebrews 5:9 KJV) Not a doctrine that an Evangelic wants to believe in! Notwithstanding, when has an Evangelic ever discarded a long held belief just because it contradicts the Bible that he claims to follow? Too few times, I deem.


But who is this mysterious Melchisedec? We read further:


“…Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation ‘King of righteousness’, and after that also ‘King of Salem’, which is, ‘King of peace’; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was…” (Hebrews 6:20b, 7:1-4a KJV)


So Melchisedec doesn’t appear to be an ordinary mortal, he and Jesus looking almost as if they are one and the identical person, with both Melchisedec (‘King of Righteousness’) and Christ (‘the Anointed’) bearing titles of rulership or singularity. Or else why does Paul describe Melchisedec, who is ‘King of Righteousness’ and ‘King of Peace’, as being “…without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually”? (Hebrews 7:3 KJV) Melchisedec doesn’t sound like an everyday man, issuing from a woman and destined to die, does he? Only Jesus comes anywhere near to matching the Apostle Paul’s description. For although He of Human Nature was in earthly terms born much later of His Virgin Mother by Flesh, Jesus of Divine Nature in heavenly terms is eternally begotten, without beginning or end, of His Uncreated Father by Spirit.


So was Melchisedec some sort of miraculous appearance of Jesus prior to being born of the Virgin Mary 2200 years later? The Catholic Church neither confirms nor denies that he is. It is therefore an allowable opinion and at least one or two Protestant scholars have suggested the possibility. He may have been a kind of angelic being sent by God to preserve True Religion amidst the tide of paganism that was then flooding the earth and perverting men’s wandering hearts. Or, according to an old Jewish custom, he may have been Shem himself, the firstborn son of Noah still alive centuries after the Flood and long after his parents had died.


Whatever the case, we find how Jesus is a High Priest of the Order of Melchisedec and that He is the High Priest for ever”, having “…an unchangeable priesthood.” (Hebrews 6:20d, 7:24c KJV)


Forever… that’s a long time. Neverending, we should say. And without any change, too. Which means, taking the next sensible step in our comprehension, that Jesus is doing priestly things --- just as Melchisedec did long ago --- right now, at this moment, with no end or alteration in sight to His Endlessly Active Priesthood. Except, isn’t a priest, particularly a High Priest, supposed to have a special place in which to do His priestly things? To be specific, a Temple or a Tabernacle? We continue:


“Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: we have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, ‘See,’ saith he, ‘that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.’ (Hebrews 8:1-5 KJV)


Now it’s getting interesting. Because we find that the temple (or tabernacle, as the KJV calls it before it became fixed in location) on earth in Jerusalem was but a physical copy of the Temple or Tabernacle in Heaven, as shown by God to Moses in the blueprint He gave him at Mt. Horeb. (Exodus 25:40. See all of Exodus 25 for the full context.) This, then, is the Celestial Temple not made by hands, the “…true tabernacle which the Lord pitched…” where Jesus the High Priest serves forever. (Hebrews 8:2 KJV) And since, as Paul points out, “…every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices”, it is for Jesus therefore a “…necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.” (Hebrews 8:3 KJV) And how did the Old Covenant priests in the earthly tabernacle --- who copied the example of the Eternal Temple in Heaven, of course --- perform their offerings of gifts and sacrifices? We go on:


+ + +  10b. “…ordinances of divine service…  + + +


“Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat…” (Hebrews 9:1-5a KJV)


Remember --- this is all a copying of the Heavenly Tabernacle. Everything the priests of the Old Covenant did in their earthly temple (or “worldly sanctuary” as the Apostle Paul puts it in Hebrews 9:1) was but a God-ordained imitation of what goes on in the Temple of Heaven. Hence, they “…had also ordinances of divine service…” Yet ironically, the word “also” is not referring directly to Heavenly Ordinances of Divine Service here. Because in the verse right before this verse, at the close of the eighth chapter, Paul observes:


“In that he saith, ‘A new covenant’, he hath made the first old...” (Hebrews 8:13a KJV, citing from Jeremiah 31:31c)


Paul quotes God through the Prophet Jeremiah from the Old Testament, alluding to the First (or Old) Covenant in contrast to the New (or Second) Covenant. The thing to realize, though --- and shocking it is to an Evangelic Protestant mind --- is that the word “also” must therefore refer to the New Covenant. To wit, where Paul says, “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary…” (Hebrews 9:1 KJV), the “also” in this verse must --- to make good, common and grammatical sense --- refer back to the new covenant (Hebrews 8:13a KJV) mentioned by Paul in the immediately previous verse where he quoted God’s own words in the Old Testament. The point?


The Apostle Paul by this reference to the New Covenant thereby proves that the New Covenant, too, has “…ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary…” just like the Old Covenant did!


Consequently, and in opposition to what Charismatics would like to believe, supposed ‘spontaneity’ and so-called ‘freedom of worship’ inside any old kind of amorphous ‘worship space’ is not what God commands of us. And if this isn’t the entirely sensible meaning of Paul’s words then what is the purpose of his saying that Jesus is a High Priest for ever”? (Hebrews 6:20d KJV) He is not a High Priest forever if He has nothing priestly ever to do again. For surely you will try to tell me --- because every Evangelic eventually does, and I once did the same --- that Jesus’ Sacrifice is not repeatable. After all, does not Paul elsewhere talk about “…the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all…”? (Hebrews 10:10b KJV) And Catholics agree; the Divine Sacrifice of Jesus cannot be repeated. Yet do you not read, too, how a high priest offers “gifts” in addition to “sacrifices” (Hebrews 8:3a KJV), and that, because Jesus is an everlasting High Priest, He is hence able also “to make intercession” everlastingly for the members of His Body? (Hebrews 7:25c KJV)


In other words, neither the Temple nor the High Priesthood nor the Ordinances of Divine Service --- for let us bravely acknowledge that these Ordinances spoken of by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews 9:1 are clearly the ritualistic liturgy that Charismatic Evangelics so passionately despise --- have been done away with in Heaven. Jesus the High Priest still offers gifts and still makes intercession according to the Everlasting Liturgy of the Temple in Heaven! And if He is a High Priest forever, then how can there not be other priests beneath Him in the New Covenant here on earth below, just as there were priests beneath Him in the Old Covenant here on earth below? Because only Jesus’ Sacrifice cannot be repeated since no other is now needed, His Once-For-All Sacrifice being utterly sufficient from the moment of the Crucifixion onward. Thus can we understand the suspension afterward of animal sacrifices on earth and the specific rituals connected to these animal sacrifices. Whereas, on the other hand, thus can we also comprehend the altering of the rituals of the Old Covenant, so that they are still in effect under the New Covenant in a different form by incorporating the Singular Sacrifice of Jesus upon the Cross into the Worship of the True Church --- just as God intended. Or are you not aware of how the Heavenly Tabernacle operates liturgically until this very day as you read my words?


“After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, ‘Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.’ And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold… And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind… And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying,Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.’ And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” (Revelation 4:1-4, 6, 8-11 KJV)


Right off the bat, we witness liturgy here in the Apostle John’s Book of Revelation. Indeed, we see ritual being carried out! Because what does John tell us?


“And the four beasts… rest not day or night, saying, ‘Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.’” (Revelation 4:8a, 8d-f KJV)


They don’t ever stop saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again! Nor do the “four and twenty elders” cease repeating, in response to what the four beasts proclaim endlessly:


Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” (Revelation 4:11 KJV)


What is this except liturgy? For liturgy is nothing but the same things repeated in a particular order for the purpose of worship, and the ritualistic proclamation of one participant is often answered by the ritualistic response of a second participant --- just as we see demonstrated in Heaven by the four beasts proclaiming, and the twenty-four elders responding, endlessly the same words of prayerful praise over and over and over again. Put another way, we see the very thing that Catholics do in a Mass or during the Rosary carried out endlessly in Heaven Above!


+ + +  10c. Priests, Altar, Robes, Temple & Incense  + + +


Oh, and by the way, what might the “elders” in this passage be? That’s an obscure term to most contemporary eyes, an obscurity found in all English translations of the Bible. Because the word that the KJV scholars render ‘elder’ in the New Testament is the Greek term ‘presbuteros’ (sometimes transliterated as ‘presbyteros’). [Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, entry number 4245, as keyed to the entry for ‘elders’ in Revelation 4:4 on page 402 of the Main Concordance.] Meanwhile, consult any good Webster’s Dictionary with etymological notes --- wherein they give you the history of a word’s origin and how it changed spelling over the centuries --- and you will find that the Greek ‘presbuteros’ became Latin’s ‘presbyter’. Then ‘presbyter’ became the Old English ‘preost’, which in turn later became Middle English ‘prest’. Finally, ‘prest’ transformed into our Modern English ‘priest’. [Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, entry with etymology for ‘priest’ on page 1128.] That is to say, ‘presbuteros’ in Greek is consequently the same precise word in both lingual descent and in meaning as ‘priest’ in English.


The upshot?


The “four and twenty elders” that John saw endlessly, ritualistically and liturgically worshipping God in Heaven are priests. As a matter of fact, how could these twenty-four even be ‘elders’, as we ordinarily use the term, when no one is significantly ‘older’ or ‘younger’ than anyone else in Heaven, when in fact everyone there lives forever and is thus immortal? These twenty-four plainly cannot be ‘elders’ in the conventional sense of the word but must instead be those whom God has chosen, along with and subordinate to His Son the High Priest, to lead the inhabitants of Heaven as lesser priests in ritualistic and liturgical worship!


But, of course, this is taboo for most Protestants since they want to think that real priests are done away with. Evangelics are especially bugged by it, the word ‘priest’ sounding far too Catholic, far too ritualistic and thus far too shocking for their tastes. Shocked that God does not, after all, disdain the use of priests during the New Covenant; rather, that He employs them to this very day in His Heavenly Worship. Yet does your skepticism persist regarding liturgy and ritual? Then consider further:


“And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?’ And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.” (Revelation 6:9-11 KJV)


Under the altar? Altar? How many Charismatic Evangelic congregations even have something anymore that they call an ‘altar’? Not many. Yet an altar is something having to do with a temple. And an altar is what you would find in every single Catholic sanctuary that you might ever have the opportunity to look inside, were that possible. Why? Because such sanctuaries simply copy the liturgy and ritual of worship in Heaven Above. Oh, and what is it with “white robes” (Revelation 6:11 KJV) being given to the martyred souls, hauntingly reminiscent of the “white raiment” of the twenty-four priests? (Revelation 4:4 KJV) Or do you not know how a priest and his assistants always wear special clothes in order to carry out their very liturgical and ritualistic worship in a temple? This is, in fact, exactly how Catholic priests and their assistants in the sanctuary dress --- in special colored clothing and robes.


And need we remind you of how the martyred souls are under the altar? An altar is found in the sanctuary of a temple, as is the altar of any Catholic sanctuary. A Catholic altar, by the way, that always must have a relic of a saint (who is often a martyr) within and thus beneath it --- just as the Altar of Heaven likewise has the souls of the martyrs underneath it. Therefore, the “white robes” of the martyrs and “white raiment” of the priests must have something to do with the liturgical worship of the Temple! Yet need you more evidence? Then ponder this:


“And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, ‘What are these which are arrayed in white robes? And whence came they?’ And I said unto him, ‘Sir, thou knowest.’ And he said to me, ‘These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.’” (Revelation 7:13-15 KJV)


Do you realize what you are reading, my dear X? This is Roman Catholic liturgy right down the line! Here are these martyred souls, clothed in ritualistic white robes, who do nothing but “serve” God “…day and night in his temple…” This is precisely the role of the assistants --- called ‘servers’ --- to a priest in a Catholic sanctuary! A priest and his server dress in clothes to symbolically represent what they are and what they do --- in the case of this biblical passage, white for purity. Yet why pure? What is the reason for it? Because only the pure in heart shall see God (Matthew 5:8), and God can be found fully, and ultimately, only in His Temple. As the Apostle John remarks elsewhere:


“And I, John, saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God…’ And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.” (Revelation 21:2-3, 22 KJV)


And also:


“Then answered the Jews and said unto him, ‘What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?’ Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ Then said the Jews, ‘Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?’ But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:18-21 KJV)


The conclusion is clear. God is the Temple in Heaven; specifically, His Son’s Body is the Temple of Heaven to be brought down to earth one day for the Communion of God with men of good will (meaning men who are Catholic since God commands everyone to enter His Catholic Church, profession of this Faith being by divine decree the very definition of what ‘good will’ is). Hence why I say that God can be found fully, and ultimately, only in His Temple. But do you still reserve skepticism about ritual and liturgy? Then read on:


“And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth…” (Revelation 8:3-5a KJV)


Okay --- I don’t know how much more stark it can get. Notwithstanding, if you’ve ever been inside a church that claims to be or once was truly Catholic, or if you’ve ever read about such places or seen them in a video or on television, then you know quite well that the things described by the Apostle John in the quote above are absolutely, one hundred percent, unmistakably bona fide Roman Catholic through and through.


Because at any Catholic Mass a priest will frequently take a golden censer filled with burning incense and offer the scented smoke at the altar near the beginning of worship to show how both he and his parishioners wish their prayers to ascend up unto Heaven like a pleasant aroma in God’s Presence. Meanwhile, did you note the use of “fire” upon the “altar” in John’s account? Fire --- which a priest uses to burn a sacrifice --- is still employed on the Altar in the Heavenly Temple even though Christ’s Singular Sacrifice has already been accomplished (remember that John wrote the Book of Revelation long after the Crucifixion) and is never to be repeated!




Because His Unique Sacrifice is Present for All Eternity. It never disappears, never is forgotten --- as a matter of fact, never can be forgotten. While never repeated, it never departs and never recedes inactive into the past or becomes irrelevant. Jesus’ Sacrifice is truly Eternal, in that it transcends time and is actively present in some form or another in Heaven from beginning of time to end of time. Hence John’s mention of “…the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Revelation 13:8b KJV) Slain from the foundation of the world --- even though Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem long, long after the founding of the world --- because His Eternal Sacrifice was foreseen over all time past prior to the Crucifixion, and is operative over all time since then through the present and on into the future. How can this be? Because God in His Fathomless Eternity has both conceived and planned the Sacrifice of His Son since the beginning of time. As the Apostle John says elsewhere in the Bible, testifying that Jesus existed eternally right from the beginning despite not being born of the Virgin Mary until thousands of years later:


“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1-3 KJV)


He Who by one action makes everything to exist at the beginning of time --- including time itself --- can easily transcend all of time by another action that He takes later during this realm of time. Such is easily within His All-Encompassing, Eternally-Existent Power. Nonetheless, the examples of ritual and liturgy, of the holy things that are used in this religious worship, don’t stop there. The reference to biblical testimony is relentless, leaving us hardly an instant in which to catch our breaths. In yet another passage John notes:


“And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament…” (Revelation 11:19a KJV)


+ + +  10d. Liturgy & Ritual Are Biblical  + + +


The sobering point to all of this, my dearest X, is that these things recorded by the Apostle John are for us in our present moment future events. No knowledgeable Evangelic would dispute this. At the very most he might suggest that the events of John’s Revelation are happening at this instant; but not that they happened in the far distant past, especially not in the time of the Old Covenant! Put differently, these ritualistic, liturgical practices are occurring, or will occur, in the Heaven of New Covenant times. To drive the point home even further:


Both liturgy and ritual are an inescapable, indisputable and intrinsic part of worship during the New Covenant, as shown by the Holy Spirit in the inerrant testimony of the Bible.


But in realizing this truth, we find the hypocrisy of Evangelic Protestants made horridly bare. Because if Heaven Above employs a Temple and a Priesthood and a Ritual and a Liturgy for the Everlasting Worship of God, whether under the Old or the New Covenants, then how in the world is it that Evangelics can condemn Roman Catholics for employing temples and priesthood and ritual and liturgy in the worship of God here on earth below when we’re only doing what Heaven Above does? And if it’s wrong for Catholics to do liturgically on earth what’s done liturgically in Heaven, then why could Israelites under the Old Covenant do liturgically on earth what’s done liturgically in Heaven? In fact, how could it conceivably be wrong for Catholics to imitate the liturgy of Heaven, a liturgy that, as Revelation shows us, is active under both Old and New Covenants, when the liturgy of Heaven is Eternal and will never end for as long as a Heaven and an earth exist, and through which Catholics imitate Heaven far more perfectly than the Israelites once did now that the Eternal Sacrifice of Christ has been accomplished on earth since the time of His Crucifixion?


Do you see?


Just how is Evangelic Protestant opposition to temples, priesthood, ritual and liturgy supposed to follow from what we read in Sacred Scripture?


The answer is --- it doesn’t, and it can’t.


Never are temples or priesthood or ritual or liturgy --- as God has ordained it for the particular Covenant in effect --- condemned or ridiculed anywhere in the Bible, contrary to what Evangelics do.


Far from it. We instead see these things used by Heaven to this day, by a Saviour Who is the High Priest forever, and thus still applicable neverendingly. We also see these things used on earth in the New Covenant, as irrefutably confirmed by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews 9:1. And does it not strike you, dear X --- were your false religion somehow shown to be correct after all --- that you would then end up feeling really, really, really strange and completely and utterly uncomfortable living forever in a Heaven dominated everlastingly by ritualistic liturgy, not to mention your having to partake in this heavenly ritual and celestial liturgy day after day after day for the rest of your immortal existence?


That would be a distasteful problem, wouldn’t it?


Surprisingly enough for you, though, this discomforting thought does not arise from a purported Roman Catholic ‘error’ regarding these matters. Just look at your own bibles, which we have been quoting extensively from! In them we find that neither Catholic ritual nor Catholic liturgy are mistaken. They are God-ordained. And Jesus’ Body, which is the Catholic Church, being God’s Household and built, by He Who is the Truth Incarnate (John 14:6), as the Unshakeable Pillar & Ground of His Truth (1 Timothy 3:14-15), is incapable of error. The Holy Spirit protects His Church from either believing or proclaiming falsehood.


No, the problem lies rooted in Evangelic Protestant heresy. Because they, in the devilish confusion of their prejudiced minds, mistakenly think that the unrepeatable uniqueness of Christ’s Sacrifice means temples, priesthood, rituals and liturgy are hence ‘useless’ from the moment of Christ’s Death onward.


This is wrong.


It is unbiblical, and it is Godless. More specifically, it betrays an exceeding blindness toward God’s Divine Plan for Man’s Redemption. To be exactingly precise, it is a mentality thoroughly muddled about God’s Purpose in giving His Son’s Precious Flesh & Blood to His Beloved Church. To wit --- the Gift of His Priceless Eucharistic Body.


For, my dear X, when you try to claim that neither Christ nor any of the writers of the New Testament taught ritual or liturgy, you not only overlook Paul’s words in his Letter to the Hebrews and John’s testimony in the Book of Revelation, but you completely miss and totally ignore what Jesus did and said at the Last Supper. This Last Supper is what Jesus foretold as He confronted the unbelieving Jews in John 6, and what the Apostle Paul taught while lecturing the careless Corinthians about this very same Supper (called the ‘Lord’s Supper’) in 1 Corinthians 11. All of this is made plain in Subsections 6d to 6j.


Because Jesus did follow ritual in officiating over the Last Supper. There is no way He could not have, the Jewish Passover being a thoroughly ritualistic liturgy of prayers, thanksgivings and collective, coordinated, unchanging actions by everyone involved. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul clearly castigates the Corinthian Church for practicing the Lord’s Supper badly. And he speaks to them not as people who observe this Supper but once in a long, long while like most Evangelics fancy themselves to do, but as people who observe it regularly and often like all Catholics in the world really have done --- every Sunday at a minimum, and frequently on a daily basis!


Therefore, X, you misunderstand utterly the nature of the Lord’s Supper, not grasping that it is both a ritual and a liturgy in the deepest sense of these beautifully descriptive words. Nevertheless, can you not see its ritual even in the midst of your Charismatic version of things? Whatever your present congregation’s custom, can’t you remember --- at Calvary Community or at Dever-Conner or at 1st Assembly --- how a leader of the congregation intoned and repeated the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospels and in Paul’s 1st Letter to the Corinthians, and how the congregation collectively, all together at the same time and in an unvarying sequence, would first eat the tiny little wafers and then drink the tiny little cups? But always synchronized with what the leader read, recalling the very words of Christ as recorded in your bibles.


That was liturgy. It was done every three months or so and hence was ritual. And it is precisely what the Eucharist is all about --- even though, tragically enough, Protestants don’t know what they’re doing when they try to accomplish it. How can they, when they don’t even believe rightly what Jesus has taught? All the same, they remember a faint echo of Godly liturgy, a faint memory of the Catholic Church’s God-ordained eucharistic ritual. Because Protestants came from Catholics, having split off from them in rebellion. Real Catholics preserve God’s ritualistic liturgy whole and untainted, whereas the most careless descendants of the rebels have perverted these rituals one after another till hardly anything is left today of the original liturgy. What remains for them is a manmade thing, a hellish substitute that in its most mangled versions pretends to be ‘spontaneous’ and ‘free’ --- but which is merely a mirage of human foolishness and diabolic slavery.


Yet enough for now about the lies of Protestant heresy made vivid for us to see. Let us return to the main thrust at this point in the discussion. Viz., that both the Last Supper and the Lord’s Supper are ritualistic liturgy. That the Last Supper --- over which Jesus officiated and which was merely the Jewish Passover as observed by Him and by His Apostles --- was ritual, we need only glance at a book recognized by knowledgeable Evangelics everywhere as an authoritative reference in order to confirm it. We quote regarding the Passover:


“Led by the father of the family, a standard ritual was followed in which everyone remembered the events of the departure from Egypt… The unleavened bread, bitter herbs, and savoury chutney (charoseth), which symbolized the haste, the bitterness, and the work (the charoseth was like mortar) their ancestors had done, all reminded them of the past. Thanksgiving was made to God with cups of red wine. The four cups that were used had to be purchased even if it meant pawning one’s possessions. Only unleavened bread could be eaten for the week that followed, and, during the period, public offerings and additional sacrifices were made.” [The New Manners & Customs of Bible Times, published in 1987 by Moody Press in Chicago IL, chapter on ‘Religion’ at page 357.]


We zero in on the key phrase found in the very first sentence of the citation above:


“…a standard ritual was followed…”


There you have it. Jesus & His Apostles performed ritual at the Last Supper, which was simply the Jewish Passover as celebrated by them just prior to His Crucifixion.


Of course, this assumes you realize that the Last Supper was the Jewish Passover. Should you have any doubts, read Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 and John 13. In each account the celebration of the Passover by Jesus & His Apostles, just prior to His Arrest and to His subsequent Passion and Crucifixion, is plainly mentioned. It also assumes you realize that the Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, where he admonishes the Corinthian Catholics concerning the Lord’s Supper, refer back to the Last Supper. Should you have uncertainty about this, read closely the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and compare them carefully with what Christ instructs in Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22 at the Passover of the Last Supper. You will find Paul to be quoting Christ’s own words in these Gospels, thereby showing the Corinthians how they are to be carrying out Christ’s instructions for remembering His Death.


In any case, if it wasn’t clear to you before, then it should be now --- the Lord’s Supper is the Last Supper, carried out perpetually in remembrance of Christ’s Death. And what is that kind of perpetual remembrance but ritual?


+ + +  10e. The Myth of ‘House Churches’  + + +


Moreover, while dealing with ancient Christian ritual, let us explode a couple of major contemporary Charismatic myths regarding the earliest Christians. Namely, that they worshipped in houses functioning primarily as homes, and that their everyday meals together were characterized by the phrase breaking of bread.


As to the first, contemporary Charismatics presume out of thin air that earliest Christian worship was ‘casual’, ‘spontaneous’ and ‘unstructured’. Part of their evidence for this is that the New Testament several times mentions Christians meeting in houses. And since for us today houses are places of extremely casual, spontaneous and unstructured behaviour (unlike a place of formal ‘institution’ and ‘structured’ behaviour, such as a parliament, a congress, a temple or a synagogue, etc.), then --- to the modern mind --- this seems like inarguable support for Charismatic Evangelic Protestantism. The problem is, does the Bible anywhere say that worship is to be ‘casual’, ‘spontaneous’ or ‘unstructured’? No, it does not. The Apostle Paul, in fact, says the opposite where he instructs the Corinthians on how to behave when assembled together for worship:


“How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying… For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Corinthians 14:26, 33-37, 40 KJV)


Decently and in order. That’s how real Christians are to behave assembled together for worship. And need I stress how God’s commandment given through the Apostle Paul about women in the church being silent is not obeyed by Charismatics? Or that a true Catholic Mass (which is the primary liturgical worship of Catholics) is the epitome of things done “decently and in order”?


Naturally. Which means that liturgy --- which is simply the structuring of worship in an orderly fashion --- starts to look pretty good in light of Paul’s Godly admonishment, doesn’t it? Not to mention understanding one of the very serious reasons for Catholics insisting that only a man can be a priest or a bishop and thus why only a man can lead real Christians in the most important worship of the Church.


Yet if these earliest Christians did not worship ‘casually’, ‘spontaneously’ and ‘unstructuredly’ as Charismatics like to assume (and an incredibly unbiblical assumption it is), then why did they often worship in houses? Aren’t houses something casual, where a family relaxes unstructured, behaving spontaneously in a laid-back manner?


Here we see the bias of Charismatics blatantly revealed. Because they badly want to believe that their way of doing things is the best way. That their customs --- for that’s all it amounts to, that they are accustomed to doing things in a particular way --- are the right customs, totally approved of by God. Customs, sadly enough, that are truly not derived from God or from the Bible, but that originate from contemporary culture and popular practice. That is to say, Americans as an overall population tend by culture to be what we call a very ‘casual’ and ‘unstructured’ people (which is really just a way of saying that Americans think everyone is leveled to the same playing field, no matter what his position in society, and that --- outside of sports, hobbies or entertainment --- the formal organization of a group’s behaviour is usually no fun). This tendency was magnified in the 20th century and was blown totally out of proportion by the countercultural revolution of the 1960s. Curious, then --- is it not? --- that Charismaticism should arise in that same decade, imitating many of the same notions and actions of that decade’s rebellious youth. Who is leading whom? If Charismatics are so ‘godly’, then why do they continually ape the ideas and practices of the world around them? Why aren’t they independent of these worldly characteristics, or even leaders of their nation’s culture instead?


But getting back to why earliest Christians worshipped frequently in houses. It’s because they at first had nowhere else to worship. I mean, think about it. Do you think Christians sprang up overnight everywhere in the world? Granted, they spread so fast that it sometimes appeared that way. But common sense tells us otherwise. It normally takes time to convert a lot of people, especially people who are thoroughly pagan. Years, decades and centuries. And most Christians of the first few hundred years were not wealthy, not powerful and not respected. As the Apostle Paul noted to the Corinthians:


“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are…” (1 Corinthians 1:26-28 KJV)


Consequently, how were these poor, uneducated, weak and despised Christians to worship? How at first could they afford to buy great plots of land and erect mammoth buildings for the assembling of their members in worship? Not only that, but even were they to be able to do these things at such an early date, then let us recall that Catholics of the first few centuries were usually shunned and oppressed, and occasionally tortured and murdered, for merely daring to follow the Religion of Jesus Christ! So how in the world could they get away with highly visible projects like buying land and building sanctuaries without a pagan public cruelly persecuting them or the idolatrous government cracking down on them violently?


They couldn’t and they didn’t.


Therefore, they did the next best thing. The few of them who were wealthy donated family homes to provide for a place of worship. Once donated, the house became a consecrated sanctuary --- not an amorphous, multi-use ‘worship space’ as Charismatics like to presume. Furthermore, once donated, the original owners may have continued to live there as a family, but they now became caretakers of the sanctuary --- and not simply inhabitants of the house. In other words, the family that originally owned a particular donated house did not continue living there as they used to, if at all. A great portion of the house was separated off, remodeled, and consecrated to holy worship. The family then sometimes remained in the other part of the house, the part that had not been consecrated. In this section they might live as before (albeit in a more sober fashion, considering the requirements of a truly Christian life and their duties toward the sanctuary) --- and if not they then a priest or a deacon, or someone training for ecclesial ministry --- taking on the responsibility of caring for the sanctuary, much like a large Protestant congregation might have a janitor and his family living within, or next to, a huge congregation’s meeting place to take care of it.


For instance, it was in this way that many of the Catholic sanctuaries in the city of Rome originated. Frequently the homes of senators (leaders of the ancient imperial government who were usually next in importance after the emperor) or of other wealthy Romans who had embraced the True Faith, these large houses were converted over to the worship of the earliest Christians. Then, when structural repair necessitated it and friendlier times allowed it, most of the sanctuaries were rebuilt completely in the fourth and fifth centuries to remain as they are essentially to this day. Even so, numerous archeological diggings in the past two hundred years meticulously reveal the architecture of the original houses underneath them, complete with consecrated sections set aside as sanctuaries where the earliest Christians worshipped ritualistically and that are often distinct from unconsecrated sections where the caretakers lived.


+ + +  10f. The Myth of ‘Christian Potlucks’  + + +


Nevertheless, what about breaking bread? Isn’t this just a fanciful way of saying that earliest Christians would ‘spontaneously’ and ‘casually’ eat their everyday meals together, kind of like an ancient Christian ‘potluck’, around which revolved their ‘unstructured’ worship?


No, it’s not.


Ancient Christians frequently did eat some meals together. This was natural since their worship was extremely lengthy, often lasting the entire day, and since many of them (at least in the earliest of times) had to travel a long distance to reach the nearest sanctuary and assembling of local Christians at Sunday Mass. Not only that, but since most of them were financially poor, it was typical for wealthier Christians to share meals with them so as to alleviate their hunger. This was particularly true given that Catholics of the first century “…were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” (Acts 2:44b-45 KJV) And since the wealthier Christians typically gave their houses over to the Church to become a sanctuary, then it made sense for these assembled Catholics, after the worship of the Mass, to get together in the part of the house that wasn’t consecrated as a sanctuary --- or in another Christian’s house nearby --- in order to share a common meal. This is what the Apostle Paul referred to when he castigated some of the Corinthian Catholics for eating like pigs and getting drunk while others of them suffered in hunger:


“For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not… Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.” (1 Corinthians 11:18-22,33-34 KJV)


Note how on occasion amongst Christians “there must be also heresies…” Why? In order “…that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1 Corinthians 11:19 KJV) This is precisely the situation between you and I, my dear X. For although you have never yet entered into the Body of God’s Son, which is the Catholic Church, you are the spiritual offspring of people who were once Catholic --- as was I before I converted. Tragically, the very act of culpably espousing a heresy causes a Catholic to cease being Catholic. The Apostle Paul is hence talking about discovering who is a real Christian (read: Catholic) and who is not (read: heretic). That is to say, the Creator will have revealed --- “made manifest” --- those that He has “approved” and those that He has not. He will show who is really a Christian and who is an imposter, by showing everyone involved who it is that follows His Doctrines correctly and who does not. Unveiled for what he is, the imposter has a chance to return to God & His Church by repenting of his heretical rebellion; or, as was my case, to renounce the heresy of his religious ancestry, joining God’s Body for the first time.


Yet let us not bog down over the topic of heresy in general. Let’s get specific. Because the Apostle Paul proceeds to tell the Corinthian Catholics, “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.” (1 Corinthians 11:20 KJV) The Lord’s Supper --- as the verses following demonstrate, and as I also made plain a few pages ago at the end of Subsection 10d --- is identical to what Jesus did for His Twelve Apostles at the Last Supper. Understanding this correctly, blinded minds of the world nevertheless take Paul’s very next words incorrectly. “For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.” (1 Corinthians 11:21 KJV)


“Aha,” conclude heretical and worldly minds, “the earliest Christians held love feasts.” They think this since a New Testament writer elsewhere speaks of his original readers partaking in ‘agape feasts’ (Jude 1:12), ‘agape’ one of several Greek words roughly equivalent to ‘love’ --- as I’m sure you already know. And these ‘love feasts’, they further hypothesize, must have been friendly ‘potlucks’ wherein all the local Christians brought food to share amongst themselves, and, during which, bread and wine (or grape juice, as most Evangelics would have it) at some point passed from hand to hand or from mouth to mouth in order to ‘remember’ Jesus’ Death. I mean, the Apostle Paul practically says so in the verses just quoted, right? Wrong. For what does Paul declare immediately after this, excoriating the Corinthians for their selfish, gluttonous and drunken behaviour?


“What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” (1 Corinthians 11:22a KJV)


There is no reason for Paul to say this unless the Lord’s Supper that he speaks of is not what modern minds suppose it to be. Because if the Lord’s Supper of earliest Christians is simply a ‘potluck’ consisting of everyday food at a ‘love feast’ held for neighboring Christians in one single location, then why would he remind them that they have houses of their own to eat in? What’s the point of him doing this when all that is actually necessary--- gluttony and drunkenness seemingly at the heart of the matter --- is to tell them to stop being selfish as they gather “into one place” to hold a ‘love feast’ together (1 Corinthians 11:20c KJV), in contrast to having each separate Christian eat individually in his own home and thus in many different places?


This is imperative to comprehend, so let us drive it home:


Paul’s words are pointless understood as Evangelics nowadays invariably understand them. Because the purpose of these ‘Christian potlucks’, suppose knowledgeable Evangelics, is to enjoy one another’s company hanging out together at one location in a ‘loving’, ‘casual’ and ‘sociable’ way. And somewhere during this ‘casually intimate’ dining time some bread and grape juice are passed around to symbolically ‘remember’ Jesus’ Death. But that’s almost beside the point. The important thing is to be ‘warm’, ‘intimate’, ‘laidback’ and ‘chummy’ with everybody around you while you eat in each other’s presence. So why remind the Corinthian Catholics that, instead of coming together ravenously or greedily hungry “into one place” for “the Lord’s supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20 KJV), they can each of them eat and drink alone separately in their own homes before they come together? As the Apostle Paul very clearly instructs, “And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.” (1 Corinthians 11:34a-b KJV) That’s not very sociable of Paul to suggest!


Meanwhile, bread and wine are just a strange little interlude in the middle of this whole gathering that Evangelics wouldn’t even bother with if their bibles didn’t mention doing it --- not that many of them trouble to observe it more than once every three months anyhow. And, to top it off, the Apostle Paul goes on to make a huge distinction between house and church, between the purportedly ‘casual’ domesticity of ordinary houses and the most definitely sacred domesticity of God’s House, a church sanctuary specially consecrated in the One True Faith of Roman Catholicism:


“What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” (1 Corinthians 11:22 KJV)


It’s right there in your bible. Paul chastised the Corinthian Christians by reminding them they had houses of their own to eat in. Ergo, there is absolutely no need to come to the church of God so famished with hunger that they stuff themselves silly the first chance they get to engorge themselves on a regular meal, consequently drawing a stark contrast between their individual houses and the specially distinct location --- called a sanctuary by Catholics --- that is the “one place” (1 Corinthians 11:20c KJV) as a local church in God’s House that they gathered within to worship. A building that is obviously not just another ‘house’ where ancient Christians ‘casually’ hung out together in a ‘laidback’ way, acting without any ‘structure’ inside of an ever-adaptable ‘worship space’.


Notwithstanding, we may go a step further. For these gluttonous Corinthians of old did indeed “despise… the church of God”, bringing “shame” to those poorer Christians --- to “them that have not” --- by eating selfishly and drunkenly in their sight without lifting a finger to share from the abundance of food that the wealthier among them had. (1 Corinthians 11:22a-c KJV)


Yet even more than this! For in gathering at the place where Mass was to be observed and the Eucharist to be partaken of --- in other words, the Lord’s Supper shared --- these gluttonous Corinthian Catholics showed themselves to care far more about earthly food than about heavenly food. As the Apostle Paul remarks, “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.” (1 Corinthians 11:20 KJV) Because the Eucharist of the Lord’s Supper is the Very Flesh & Blood of Jesus Christ and the Creator’s primary ongoing means for men to receive the Gift of Everlasting Life. It is, in fact, the Fruit of the Tree of Life from the Garden of God’s Paradise offered to mere mortal men to eat for the sake of their Salvation. Nonetheless, these earthly-minded Corinthians preferred being in the unconsecrated part of a former house --- or in a typical nearby house --- eating a miserable little meal of material food with gluttonous and drunken relish… food that by itself could not guarantee them bodily life for more than a few days. Meanwhile, they had comparatively little desire to be in the consecrated part of a former home that was now the sanctuary of God’s House, eating the Bread of Life, Bread able to help both soul and body enter a Blessed Eternity with the Creator Of Everything That Exists.


What an appalling lack of judgment on their parts! Which is why Paul chides them sharply, “Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” (1 Corinthians 11:22d KJV) And why he also says “…if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.” (1 Corinthians 11:34a-b KJV)


Condemnation. How can this be? Because the richer among them ate like gluttons while the poorer among them watched hungrily. And, even more terrible, because both rich gluttons and hungry poor cared more for the meal consisting of everyday human food after Mass than they cared about the eucharistic meal beforehand consisting of Jesus’ Flesh & Blood during Mass.


But their gluttony was particularly reprehensible since each local church had deacons assigned to gather from those Catholics that had much in order to disperse to those Catholics that had little, particularly widows and orphans. (See Acts 6:1-3 for one local example of this.) Hence Paul reminding the Corinthians that they had houses of their own to sup in. For the poorer among them, were they in legitimate need, should have received regular assistance, including food as necessary, from the deacons. Food they very well could eat at home in their own houses were they truly hungry before Sunday morning came for them to be in the sanctuary to participate in the Eucharistic Mass --- called an ‘agape feast’ since, in partaking of God’s Flesh as a member of His Body, which is the Church, every participant shares in the Divine Love that God has paternally for His Body and in the Divine Love that each member of this Body has for his fellow siblings.


The ordinary meals, then, that earliest Christians shared together in the smaller, unconsecrated section of a former house that had been converted into a sanctuary --- or that they shared in the nearby home of another local Catholic --- were therefore not to be occasions where needy, famished Christians satiated their hunger or where greedy, fat Christians satiated their appetites. No. They were to be times of modest refreshment, amidst a day of long liturgical worship and in consideration of those who had walked far to reach the sanctuary, where everyone ate as he had genuine need without anyone going hungry or anyone stuffing himself ravenously and to the point of inebriation. Gnawing hunger could be satisfied at home, even amongst the poorer of them. The deacons would see to it --- provided they were doing their job, and provided the wealthier among them were giving freely of their abundance. Which indicts these ancient Corinthian Catholics all the more since, plainly, either the deacons or the wealthier among them were not doing what they were supposed to do.


In any case, you may see how the phrase ‘breaking of bread’ is not just a euphemism in the Bible for saying ancient Christians had an everyday meal together. Is bread the only thing people eat? Is bread all that ancient men and women consumed? No, it was not. Hence, why should Protestants assume --- from out of their imaginations --- that ‘breaking bread’ must always refer to eating a mundane meal? Indeed, why shouldn’t ancient man have instead called it ‘breaking fish’ or ‘breaking mutton’ or ‘breaking olives’ or ‘breaking cheese’ or ‘breaking beef’ or ‘breaking dates’ or ‘breaking leeks’ or ‘breaking honeycomb’ or ‘breaking vegetables’ or ‘breaking what-have-you’? Didn’t they eat all of these things in significant amounts, too? Then why in the Bible is the ‘breaking of bread’ always supposed to be a metaphorical description of their meals? Why must it be when all these other things can just as well metaphorically describe the eating of all the many different contents of their everyday meals?


Mind you, this is not to say ancient man did not sometimes use the word ‘bread’ in reference to eating an ordinary meal --- either because bread is all they ate at a particular sitting, or because ‘bread’ was a metaphor for other kinds of food as well. E.g., Luke describes a meal that Jesus had with a Pharisee by saying:


“And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him.” (Luke 14:1 KJV)


Later in the same chapter Luke calls this meal by another expression --- suggesting, in this case, the metaphorical use of “bread” to mean food other than bread --- wherein one of Jesus’ fellow diners just happens to mention eating ‘bread’ in the “kingdom of God.”


“And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard these things, he said unto him, ‘Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.’ ” (Luke 14:15 KJV)


Incidentally, the Greek term rendered “meat” here by the KJV scholars is literally a word meaning ‘grain-measure’. [Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, entry number 4620, as keyed to the entry for ‘meat’ in Luke 14:15 on page 897 of the Main Concordance.] Causing us to realize that the “bread” which Jesus ate with the Pharisee was, after all, perhaps merely bread and nothing more.


Yet whether bread or something else, you’ll notice in the KJV how the Bible employs the word ‘break’, or some grammatical variation thereof (such as ‘breaking’, ‘brake’, ‘broke’, or ‘broken’), in conjunction with the word ‘bread’ while necessarily meaning not a whit otherwise. That is to say, search the New Testament through and you will not find the word ‘bread’, used in conjunction with a variation on the word ‘break’, to inarguably mean anything other than simple, plain, distinct, literal and solitary breaking of bread alone… and naught more. Go ahead. Look carefully. Scour your Strong’s Concordance. Pop a compact disc of the KJV bible into your computer and do some word searches. Absolutely nothing in the New Testament, as reported by the KJV scholars, contextually requires the phrase ‘breaking of bread’ --- or an equivalent grammatical variation --- to mean anything other than, literally, the breaking of bread.


So, my dear X, you see the lack of good reason for presuming out of thin air that ‘breaking of bread’ means an ordinary meal, one consisting of other foods in addition to bread. Protestants have neither biblical nor historical evidence from this long ago era to say otherwise. Their assumption is based on ignorance and prejudice. Ignorance, because they have never really studied the matter sufficiently. And prejudice, well… read the very next subsection.


+ + +  10g. Bread, Passover, Feast & Mass  + + +


Because what are some of the things Evangelics hate? Regarding Catholic Doctrine, I mean. Right. The Three Biggies, as I’ve remarked before. The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Papacy, and the Eucharist. The Eucharist we’ve already addressed at length. And what did Jesus do at the Last Supper? Correct. He broke bread. To be exact:


“…Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it…” (Matthew 26:26b-c KJV)




“…Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it…” (Mark 14:22b-c KJV)


As well:


“…he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it…” (Luke 22:19a-b KJV)


In each account we find that Jesus broke bread’.


Now, what think you? Was the Jewish Passover merely an ordinary dinner? Was the Last Supper simply an everyday meal? Patently not, or else there was no reason for God through Moses to establish it as a liturgical ritual in the Old Covenant (Exodus 12:1-27), nor was there any reason for Jesus to tell His Apostles to do what He did at the Passover of the Last Supper in remembrance of Him. (Luke 22:19) Even more to the point, how could either the Jewish Passover or the Last Supper be only a mundane meal when God, giving liturgical details about how the Passover is to be ritualistically observed, told the Israelites “…ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever…”? (Exodus 12:24 KJV)


Say again?


“And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.” (Exodus 12:24 KJV)


There it is, loud and clear. The Passover is an ordinance --- that word again! --- and it is to be observed forever.


And I ask you, dearest X:


How can the Passover be observed forever as a ritualistic and liturgical ordinance when the Old Covenant is now passed away, having been fulfilled by Jesus Christ in the New Covenant?


And the answer:


Because, in fulfilling it, Jesus then modified the Old Covenant liturgical ritual to become in the New Covenant what Catholics call the Eucharist --- to wit, the true Roman Catholic Mass of old that has endured since earliest centuries. In fact, this is why the Apostle Paul declares what follows in the paragraph below.


“In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together… Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Corinthians 5:4a,6b-8 KJV)


The key passages?


“In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together… Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast…” (1 Corinthians 5:4a,7-8a KJV)


Paul is incontestably a leader of the New Covenant after Jesus had fulfilled the Old Covenant. As a result, when the Corinthian Catholics are “gathered together”, what on earth can he mean by calling Christ “our passover sacrificed for us” whilst, quick on the heels of saying this, he admonishes the Corinthians to “therefore… keep the feast”? How on earth can he, a leader of the New Covenant and no longer a Jew who is bound by Old Covenant ceremonies, tell Christians of the New Covenant --- most of whom were Gentiles ---to keep the Old Covenant ceremony of the Passover Feast in spite of Jesus having died “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10 KJV), thereby fulfilling the Old Covenant, and in spite of Jesus’ Sacrifice being something that is never repeatable?


Obviously, something deeper is going on here. Something more than meets the eye is occurring under the very noses of Evangelic Protestants. What is this mysterious something?


The Eternal Sacrifice of Jesus Christ continues forever as a ritualistic and liturgical ordinance since the Sacrifice of His Flesh & Blood transcends space and time totally. Remember --- the Apostle John calls Jesus “…the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Revelation 13:8c KJV) Ergo, Jesus’ Sacrifice must be Eternal, and it must transcend space and time. Or else how can He have been “…slain from the foundation of the world”? For, strictly speaking in limited human terms, Jesus was not “…slain from the foundation of the world.” Rather, men only crucified Him at that instant in time we call the First Century AD and at that spot in space we call Jerusalem of Palestine, long after God founded the world! So how could John speak of Him as having died at the very beginning of the world, before there was any passage of time and before there was even anything like the fully formed earth with places and locations and specific spots that can be talked about as if they were distinct from other spots and locations and places?


No, the only sensible understanding is precisely what Catholics have said for nearly 2000 years. That Jesus took the Passover at the Last Supper and molded it into a blueprint for all the Lord’s Suppers observed thereafter. (This is why, incidentally, Catholics celebrate ‘feast days’ since the Mass comes from the Passover Feast, and since most of the year’s days have a particular Mass associated with a particular saint, the Feast of the Mass being the Heavenly Feast of Jesus’ Flesh that is offered and eaten in this saint’s honour.) And, in fact, when you study the Catholic Mass assiduously, piece by piece and bit by bit, comparing it to the earliest records of the ancient liturgy (i.e., the prayers, thanksgivings, speeches, responses and collective, coordinated, unchanging actions of everyone involved) of the Jewish Passover, you find that the two are intimately connected. Indeed, that the Passover was but carefully modified and piously amplified to become what we call the Mass. In short, that the Roman Catholic Mass is nothing more than the Jewish Passover of the Old Covenant as God from the beginning of time in His Divine Mind & Sovereign Will intended it to be in the New Covenant --- forever.


And so we suddenly comprehend those fleeting references in the New Testament to the ‘breaking of bread’. For example:


“And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers… And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart…” (Acts 2:42,46 KJV)




“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them… When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” (Acts 20:7a,11 KJV)




“And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.” (Acts 27:35 KJV)


As well:


“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16 KJV)


And need I point out how this last quote demonstrates better than anything I could come up with on my own that the ‘breaking of bread’ and “the communion of the body of Christ” are one and the same thing? Or that the quote from Acts 20 five paragraphs above shows us how “the first day of the week” --- i.e., Sunday --- is the one day of the whole week (being the day that Jesus resurrected and thus the Sabbath of the New Covenant) upon which real Christians from most ancient times would always partake of the Eucharist in Holy Mass, whether or not they were able to do so on other days?


+ + +  10h. The Mystery of Bread & Wine  + + +


Notwithstanding, the Mystery of God deepens. Because bread & wine in the Eucharist did not arise suddenly full blown out of nowhere. It wasn’t innovated off the top of Jesus’ head, nor was it something God accidentally added, or allowed to be added, at the last minute.


No. It was purposed from the beginning. How so?


Look at your bibles. Search carefully the Old Testament. After all, the mobile Tabernacle of the wandering Israelites, which then became the fixed-in-location Temple of King Solomon, were not random acts of history. They came from God. God with great detail instructed Moses on top of Mt. Horeb in how to construct the Tabernacle, and about how to worship within it. (Exodus 24:12-40:18. See Exodus 25:40 to confirm that God was showing Moses a Heavenly Pattern for the construction of this earthly version of what operated liturgically in Heaven Above.) That is to say, He revealed the Eternal Temple of Heaven and a foreshadowing of that Temple’s Everlasting Liturgy so that Moses could copy it and give it to the Israelites, especially to the Levites and to the sons of Aaron (who were the priests) so that they could ritualistically imitate Heaven Above. And aside from the now defunct animal sacrifices, what ritual particularly stands out in relation to our topic, a ritual commanded of the Israelites by God?


“Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even: and with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering. And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the Lord.” (Exodus 29:38-41 KJV)


Ahhh. So lambs were not just sacrificed at Passover. They were sacrificed daily under the Old Covenant. And what does a lamb represent? Even as Protestants, you know the answer to this --- a lamb represents Jesus. John the Baptist backs it up:


“Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, ‘Behold the Lamb of God!’” (John 1:35-36 KJV)


But a lamb is not all that the priests of the Old Covenant offered upon the altar daily, morning and evening. For with every lamb they sacrificed upon the fire of the altar, they also offered “…a tenth deal of flour…” and “…the fourth part of an hin of wine…” (Exodus 29:40 KJV) And what does flour make? Right… bread! Hmmm. Bread and wine. Yet do we doubt this? Then let us look at the same thing expressed differently a little later in the Books of Moses, once more straight from God Himself:


“Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, ‘My offering, and my bread for my sacrifices made by fire, for a sweet savour unto me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in their due season.’ And thou shalt say unto them, ‘This is the offering made by fire which ye shall offer unto the Lord; two lambs of the first year without spot day by day, for a continual burnt offering. The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even; and a tenth part of an ephah of flour for a meat offering, mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil. It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord. And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the Lord for a drink offering. And the other lamb shalt thou offer at even: as the meat offering of the morning, and as the drink offering thereof, thou shalt offer it, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.’” (Numbers 28:2-8 KJV)


What do we know? We see again how lambs were offered daily unto the Lord, morning and evening, each time with bread and wine for a sacrifice made by fire.


Hence, the bread and wine of the Eucharist were not something utterly new! They were there the whole time in the liturgy and rituals of the Old Covenant. All that remained to be accomplished --- and it was crucial, of course --- was for Jesus the Lamb of God to carry out on earth His Eternal Sacrifice upon the Cross, and thus to make real His Flesh & Blood under the appearance of bread & wine in the Holy Eucharist. Nonetheless, just as the lambs were there from the start of the Old Covenant, representing the Son of God to come, so, too, were the bread and wine there from the start of the Old Covenant, representing the Eucharistic Flesh & Blood of the Son of God still to come.


More than that… for do you recollect what Melchisedec did for Abraham? We perused already the words of the Apostle Paul in Hebrews upon this subject. And we saw how Melchisedec looked very much like Christ; how he seems to transcend mortality and exercised a continual priesthood! We read now in the first book of the Bible the story of his advent back then:


“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, ‘Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.’ And he gave him tithes of all.” (Genesis 14:18-20 KJV)




But there it is in Sacred Scripture, in your very own Protestant bible. Melchisedec (spelled Melchizedek in the Old Testament of the KJV) was a priest. And a priest’s job, like the Books of Moses make clear, is to offer sacrifice unto God. Yet what sacrifice did Melchisedec offer?


Bread and wine.


Amazing, is it not? Indeed. Nigh well unbelievable, were it not for the fact that we saw both in Exodus and in Numbers how the priests of the Old Covenant were solemnly commanded by God to offer bread and wine unceasingly, day and night, with the sacrifice of fire in addition to the lamb which was offered as well.


Nevertheless, this simply brings us full circle. Because we began this latest section, Section 10, examining Melchisedec. Which led us to an in-depth look at the nature of Heaven’s Liturgy and how it is inextricably bound with the Eternal Sacrifice of Christ. Which in turn led us to realize that the Liturgy of Heaven is merely imitated here on earth during both Old & New Covenants, and how this liturgy revolves everlastingly around the Very Real Flesh & Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist under the appearance of simple bread and wine!


And… voilá. There it is at the very beginning of the Old Covenant. The man by whom God chose to usher in the Old Covenant, Abraham, the Father of the Israelites, is met by a foreshadowing of Christ as Abraham returns from winning a great battle. And this mysterious Melchisedec, this antecedent of Christ in the flesh, gives Abraham the sacrificial offering of bread and wine --- the Eucharist at this moment undeniably prefigured centuries before Jesus Christ officially instituted it as a Perpetual Sacrifice on earth at the Last Supper --- who in turn gives this priest, Melchisedec, a tithe of everything he possessed, just like the Law of God requires His people to do for any of His priests. (See Numbers 18:1-7, 20-24 & Deuteronomy 26:12-19)


Full circle, Old & New, joined in perfection.


Because there never was any real contradiction between the two Covenants, contrary to what Evangelics unthinkingly presume. They are one and the same Covenant, each one reflecting the Everlasting Liturgy & Ritual of Heaven Above. Except, in the New, the Old is fulfilled. And it is fulfilled because Jesus the Divine Sacrifice is made present on earth, in the Flesh upon the Cross and in the Eucharist upon the Altar. Whereas before, under the Old, these things were merely foreshadowed --- even in the haunting bread and wine of the mysterious Melchisedec they were not yet made real. But Jesus in the Flesh and Jesus in the Eucharist have always been there in the Fathomless Eternity of the Creator’s Mind from the beginning. And the God-ordained ritualistic liturgy of Heaven, which revolves around the Eucharist, has always, is now, and will always be in effect. It is exactly as God has purposed from the foundation of the world. It’s only that in the New, His Eternal & Heavenly Purpose is become fully operative in Heaven and fully revealed to us here on earth… to those, i.e., who eagerly listen, believe and obey, and who humbly walk, deviating neither to the left nor to the right, the Single Narrow Path of the One True Religion which God commands everyone on earth to follow.


Bringing me to conclude my response to your assertion about “…the trappings and ritual and liturgy of the Roman Catholic Faith…” Because your statement --- as just cited --- is simply that:


Your statement.


It is not in the Bible, and you didn’t even pretend to quote or extract it from the Bible.


So where did it come from?


Either it originates from you, X, or you adopted it from someone else. If the first, then you pose as a prophet who contradicts what is revealed in the Bible. If the second, then you adhere to a tradition which contradicts what is revealed in the Bible.


Whichever is the case, you can see again a vivid difference between your false religion and the Catholic Church:


Because a real Catholic actually believes everything that the Bible actually says.




And the Bible says that both Heaven & the Church practice eternally timeless rituals, liturgical rituals which just happen to be perfectly identical to what the Roman Catholic Church rightly practices --- and there is none other on earth that can both validly and lawfully claim the same.


End of sentence.


+ + +


Pilate’s query met:



if you have come to this webpage directly from a search

engine or other website, then, when done viewing this webpage

 --- and assuming you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---

please type the website’s address (as given above right before this

note) into the address bar at the top of your browser and hit the

enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.


Please go here about use of the writings

on this website.


© 2008 by Paul Doughton.

All rights reserved.