Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


BAD REFUTATIONS OF PRIESTS TURNING BREAD AND WINE INTO JESUS' BODY AND BLOOD
 
The Roman Church tells us that the priest turns the bread and wine into Jesus Christ at Mass. We need to expose the proofs against the Catholic doctrine that Jesus is really present in the consecrated host and chalice used by the Bible-bashers that do not work. Bad proofs waste time and justify mistrust in the minds of our critics.
 
It is not enough to point to the biblical references to the consecrated elements as bread and wine as disproofs of transubstantiation for Rome has no problem with calling them that either. Perhaps it could be countered that Rome only does that because the Bible does and the Bible did it because they were just bread and wine. Jesus stressed that wine was wine by saying he would not drink it until he entered the kingdom after he called it his blood which is too emphatic and unnecessary a statement to be calling the blood wine in the sense that the Catholics do. You see, he could have said I will not drink this cup but instead he said, “I will not drink this fruit of the vine”, so he was trying to tell us something. So we have to be careful – also I would add that the strange emphasis that the bread and wine were just these indicate that the gospels were written in the second century when some like Justin Martyr seemed to say that the bread and wine became Jesus literally. The Catholics say the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist could be symbolically called bread and wine to remind us that they are food and drink for us. Rome’s Fourth Eucharistic Prayer calls the changed and consecrated species bread and wine. It is wrong to say that the bread and wine texts should be taken literally without first proving that the parts that seem to say they are flesh and blood are or at least could be figurative and it is certain they could be figurative.
 
At Bethany, a woman poured perfume over Jesus’ feet. The people there complained that it should have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus said that the poor would always be around but that he would not (John 12:8). This fails to refute transubstantiation because we all say we will be gone some day even if we believe that we will be spirits hovering over the earth after death. Jesus did not mean that he would be literally completely gone for he promised to dwell with his people forever. He would be visibly gone.
 
Some object that his body would be gone for he said that the woman was right to honour it for it would not be around much longer. He could have meant that his body would not be around in the sense that it could be anointed not ruling out the notion that it would be around in the form of bread in which state it cannot be anointed for whatever happens to this form does not happen to his body.
 
It is claimed that the words of Christ at the last supper after he said the bread and wine were his body and blood, “Do this in memory of me”, disprove the Real Presence dogma for you cannot commemorate what you have in front of you. You can if you can’t see it. Memorial services are held to remember the dead and their spirits may be present.
 
The Bible says that Jesus ate what he said as his body at the Last Supper. This does not refute transubstantiation for there would be no harm or folly in Christ eating himself. He might have done this to express unity with the others. The objection that when Jesus blessed the first Eucharist he didn’t disappear to become what were formerly bread and wine is no good for Rome says that the substance of Christ becomes present in the elements. Substance in their view is not like the things that appear to the sense but something like spirit that has no parts and makes a thing what it is. It is like something behind veils that makes no difference to their appearance or existence whether they are there or not.
 
Arguing that transubstantiation cannot be true when the Bible says that Jesus’ body is in Heaven is a mistake (Hebrews 10:12). The doctrine says that Jesus is in Heaven but God by altering the law of space can make it possible for us to eat Jesus without him leaving Heaven. Science says there was no space before the Big Bang so space can be changed now. A space warp takes place in the Eucharist so that though the bread becomes Jesus it does not mean Jesus is literally on the altar, he’s still in Heaven.
 
Some argue that since the pagan cults practiced a form of transubstantiation that the Catholic doctrine must be of the Devil and wrong. This is appalling logic. Pagans drink wine. Does that mean it is wrong for us to drink it or that Catholics should not use it in communion?
 
Some argue that transubstantiation cannot be true when the term was not employed in the Bible or the Early Church. But that does not matter. You can believe in God without having the word God. So as long as the early Church believed that there was no bread and wine left on the altar for Jesus was there now that would suffice.