Catholic Ritual
Defended
+ +
+
How
Even
a Protestant
Bible
Shows Catholic Ritual &
Commanded
in the Worship of His
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
Virgin Mother of God,
Unto the Protection & Propagation of
the Holy Catholic Church
& Her Most Precious Heavenly Dogmas,
and
Under the Euphonious Patronage of St.
Cecilia,
Virgin & Martyr.
COMPOSED JUNE 2004. REVISED APRIL 2005.
EDITED WITH ADDITIONS JUNE 2005.
“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
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!
A NOTE TO THE
READER:
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 “
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
“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
+
+ + 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
“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
“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
“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
“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!
Why?
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
+
+ + 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
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
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
+
+ + 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
“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
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
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
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
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)
And:
“…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
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)
Too:
“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:
“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
“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
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
Astonishing!
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.
Period.
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:
Note:
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.