my post of this morning. Daryl had commented on a previous post, accusing me of not following Christ and calling the Catholic mass a "fiasco."
I asked him to flesh out his comments, and he has done so, in a sort of Socratic dialog in which my comments from posts (WB) are answered by him (DK).
I will post my own reply to his latest comments, probably Tuesday if time permits. I must first read carefully and pick out the three or four most salient points that seem to require my own thoughtful responses.
In the meantime, readers are welcome to comment—with my continuing request that comments be respectful to both sides in this debate. If anyone has trouble posting to the blog (as some report), feel free to e-mail the writer at [websterb, at sign, memoirsunlimited (one word), dot, com].
My post has already elicited one comment from "Lori," whom I know to be a (presumably Catholic) reader of this blog and a friend on Facebook and Goodreads. Lori asks Daryl "to explain Jesus's meaning in John 6:54-56. His words were very plain: 'He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.…'"
I think Lori will find that Daryl "answers" this question to his own satisfaction in what follows. This is not to say that I agree with what he has written.
But anyway here you go—
W.B. I need to know with whom I am discussing these matters. (Reference)
D.K. I'm simply a Reformed Baptist following the Lord Jesus, and if you must know, am 56 years old. In this modern age of "spider webs," I happen to fly into yours.
W.B. I am not political by nature, and I am no theologian. (Reference)
D.K. According to the book of Revelation, "thousands upon ten thousands" will be saved (5:11) and I dare say that not all of them will have lettered doctorates, including myself. However, the Lord does instruct us to, "study to show thyself approved" (2 Tim 2:15).
W.B. It probably will not surprise you that, as a Catholic, I had to look up your Scriptural citations. (Reference)
D.K. Neither is it required that we be able to quote chapter and verse by memory, although it does come in handy. Yet if by the fact that I happen to know certain verses by memory and you do not, consider it a catalyst to exercise your mind all the more, rather than your body, as outlined in your trek on the "Camino" road. Nothing wrong with walking long distances, but it would be erroneous to say that...
W.B. [On the Camino de Santiago] each pilgrim, Catholic or not, was following the Church and therefore following Christ..... (Reference)
D.K. But as you know, "Christ-like" conclusions are not always reached at the end of the journey.
W.B. You may not come to the Camino for Jesus, but he will give you something here anyway. You just have to walk. (Reference)
D.K. But the Jesus of the Bible did not give anything to Shirley McClaine for example, who wrote of her trek in, "The Camino: A Journey of the Spirit", and came out of it more convinced than ever of her Christ-rejecting, New Age beliefs.
W.B. It appears on closer reading that, as someone who "came out of Catholicism 25 years ago," you have made a judgment about me that I "have converted to the Catholic Church, BUT NOT TO CHRIST!" (caps yours). That's a serious charge, and I would like to know why you make it. Perhaps you are correct. (Reference)
D.K. Well to begin with, you admit as much when you say...
W.B. Plain and simple, I had fallen in love. One doesn’t ask every reasonable question the moment one falls in love. One simply follows the beloved. So I began following the Catholic Church.
D.K. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am reading you as saying that upon conversion you began following the "beloved" (small b), identifying it as the Roman Catholic Church in particular—rather than the Beloved (capital B, aka the Lord Jesus Christ, per Ephesians 1:6). This was precisely the error the Ephesians were falling into in Rev 2:4. "The Beloved" congratulated this church on all her many "beloved" good works done in His name, but these beloved good works were becoming simply mechanical, and consequently, the Beloved accused them...
"But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had [for me] at first."
The point being that SALVATION IS IN A PERSON! "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee... having SALVATION... riding upon a colt" (Zech 9:9). If salvation comes to us at all, it MUST come from a source outside of ourselves because, "He is mighty to save" (Isa 63:1). We are not told to convert to the church or that IT is mighty to save, or that good works are might to save, or the Pope is mighty to save, or that baptism is mighty to save, or that anything else is mighty to save.
Simeon picked up the babe and said, "Now let me depart in peace for I have SEEN thy salvation."
Thus, when Vatican 1 self-appointed itself "infallible" circa 1870 and declared that salvation would be forfeited if one did not check in their brains with the Vatican hat-check girl and submit to papal subordination, we may safely conclude that they were so full of baloney that they ought to have opened up a delicatessen.
Why? Because Acts 4:12 says, "There is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved."
The word "name" there means, "authority". Ergo, there is no other delegated authority, be it pope, priest, pauper or palace in Rome, which God has appointed to save, other than that name which is called "Wonderful", which is contra V-1 ("On the Power & Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff", ch. 3).
W.B. I probably am not "up to the task" because of my non-talents in the political and theological areas. (Reference)
D.K. I appreciate your humility, but you do have a responsibility to check out what I say; otherwise you may end up like all those self-proclaiming Christians in Matt 7:22, who screamed loudly on Judgment Day that they had followed the Lord all their lives, but were met with, "I don't think so!" Obviously, they were religious, but LOST. It would appear they built their faith and trust on their good works and church membership, rather than on Christ alone.
You include a quote on the left side of this page: "On the day of Judgment, we will not be asked what we have read, but what we have DONE." However, this is seriously misleading, as we have just seen the ramifications of this belief played out in Matt 7:22 & Rev 2:4. This type of attitude embodies the very thing Jesus was warning against!
Kindly see this 3 minute video as the implications of the above two verses are played out before you.
W.B. To put the matter more rationally, I didn’t know why I was going to mass, but I understood. (Reference)
D.K. I disagree. I submit that if you truly understood the unbiblical implications of the Mass, you would not be going at all.
W.B. Knowledge might get you through college, but understanding alone...can write your ticket to the kingdom of heaven. (Reference)
D.K. According to the RCC, one's "ticket to heaven" may be purchased by "understanding" that ingesting the wafer via the mouth throughout one's lifetime is necessary for salvation (CCC #1129 & Council of Trent, "Concerning Communion", ch. 1)—and that it is the "center, source and summit of the Christian life" (CCC #1324 & 1343). We would agree that if this is true, then the whole world ought to become Roman Catholic.
On the other hand, if it is not, then this teaching must be ranked as unimaginably deceptive and downright heretical. My burden here is to safeguard the gospel (Jude 1:3). If a religious system claiming to be Christian is going to demand that something be done as a prerequisite for entering heaven's gate, we should recall that, "the honor of a king is to search out a matter" (Proverbs 25:2). And we must therefore do likewise.
W.B. Why do you find the Holy Mass a fiasco? (Reference)
D.K. Well to begin with, Scripture declares that the physical presence of Jesus was going away!
"I go to prepare a place for you" . . . "Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more." . . . "I go away" . . . "But now I go my way to Him that sent me." . . . "I leave the world and go unto the Father" . . .. "I go to my Father and ye see me no more." . . . "For the poor ye have with you always; but me ye have not always." . . . "Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come." . .. . "And now, I am no more in the world." . . . (John 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5, 16:29, 16:10, 12:8, 7:34, 17:11).
And Paul confirmed that, "though we have known Christ in the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him NO MORE" (2 Cor 5:16). Notice—He does not say that in light of Christ's physical absence, we be consoled with either the Lord's physical presence via "Eucharistic Adoration"--or eating His flesh as a result of swallowing it. The fact is, that Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to every believer, which ipso facto, eliminates the necessity for the "Real Presence" altogether, and hence, Christ was speaking figuratively in John 6 and at the Last Supper. The very idea that He has promised us His bodily presence in the form of a Ritz cracker, is beyond ridiculous and makes the doctrine of transubstantiation at war with the Bible from the get-go.
Furthermore, Jesus emphatically states that prior to the time of His second coming, "if any man shall say to you, lo, here is Christ; or lo, He is there; believe it not " (Mk 13:21).
Is not the RCC bidding us to believe Christ is "over there" in a dispensary called a "monstrance," and picked out by the hands of the priest distributing Him in "physical form" at Communion? Yes they are, and thus, all true Christians must "believe it not."
Moreover, what earthly good does swallowing the wafer do for you that the presence of the Holy Spirit does not?
Typical responses piously attempt to hijack the attributes of the Holy Spirit which are mentioned everywhere in Scripture, and then proceed to plant them on the head of the Eucharist, the attributes of which are mentioned NOWHERE; which is precisely why and how they justify this hijacking. Thus, the doctrine of the "Real Presence" in the wafer makes the promise of the Holy Spirit, redundant and superfluous, and we will have none of it.
What makes this teaching even more obnoxious is that, "the Eucharistic Presence of Christ endures only as long as the Eucharistic species subsists" (CCC #1377). "This real presence only remains while the Blessed sacrament still continues undestroyed, which will only be for a few minutes at most" ("How to Become a Catholic" by Fr. George Searle).
This means that when the wafer enters the stomach and the acids begin their attack—altering its structure (normally within 2 minutes) "Jesus" then leaves! Non-catholics, on the other hand, are content with the "Real Presence" 24/7, via the Holy Spirit. Hence, the most any Catholic can be sure of is that this "Jesus" (which we submit is an imposter, per 2 Cor 11:4) lingers in the stomach for 2 minutes doing who knows what, and then makes a fast getaway when the stomach acids set out to war. Amusingly, we are left with the Creator of the universe becoming a prisoner of war in the stomach, and needing to escape the very stomach acids He has created! The escapee then becomes M.I.A. until the next Mass.
Whatever Jesus meant by telling us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, (addressed next time) it certainly did not pertain to the RC wafer because first of all, it had never even been established yet, so it would be impossible for Him to hold His audience responsible for knowing THAT; but He wuzzzz holding them responsible for knowing SOMETHING. Second, those who do "eat Him"...."dwelleth in me, and I in him". The word "dwelleth" means to "remain, to endure, to last and to abide". But the Roman Catholic "Jesus" (2 Cor 11:4) does not remain, endure or abide, but packs His bags and exits after 2 minutes. . . . not to return until the following Sunday.