See Jesus via web cam, 24/7!

I’ve mentioned many times that evangelicals and Catholics view the Lord’s Supper VERYAA!! differently. Evangelicals partake of the symbolic elements of the Lord’s Supper with great humility and thanksgiving as we remember that our Lord gave His body and blood as a sacrifice for our sins so that we could have eternal life in Him.

Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches its priests change bread wafers and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus at every mass. The priest then offers up Jesus the “host” (victim) to God the Father as a sacrifice for the sins of those present, the pope, the local bishop, and anyone else mentioned (including souls suffering in purgatory). Many of the attendees then line up to receive a wafer (wine from a shared cup is optional) from the priest. Catholics are taught Jesus is physically present inside of them for 15 minutes as their body digests the wafer. The church teaches the venial (small) sins of the participants can be forgiven at any point during the mass but especially during the “penitential rite and at Holy Communion.” Catholics believe the consecrated wafer imparts graces to the recipient to help them avoid committing mortal (deadly) sins in the future.

The sacrament of the eucharist (thanksgiving) is the central tenet of the Catholic belief system. Rather than receiving Jesus as Savior by faith spiritually, Catholicism sadly misinterprets John 6 and the Last Supper discourses and insists Jesus must be physically eaten. Catholics give lip service to “grace” and “faith” but believe they must ultimately merit their salvation by obeying the Ten Commandments (impossible!) and man-made church rules.

Getting back to the wafer hosts, any leftovers are stored in a locked box called the “tabernacle,” to be distributed later to the sick and housebound. On occasion, priests will set a large host in an ornate viewing container called a “monstrance.” Catholics are invited to come to church separately from the mass to worship and adore the wafer Jesus as he rests in the container. In some churches, volunteers sign up for time slots so that the wafer will be worshipped around the clock in “perpetual adoration.”

I’m currently reading “Another Jesus: The eucaristic christ and the new evangelization” by Roger Oakland and I wanted to pass on a bit of information that’s presented. There are a few Catholic religious orders that do nothing else but worship the consecrated bread wafer. The members of the order eat, sleep, and worship the wafer. In his book, Oakland mentions a web site (see below)  maintained by the Holy Spirit Adoration Sisters, which includes a live web cam of a host in a monstrance. That’s right! Catholics can view and worship the wafer Jesus any time they want within the privacy and comfort of their own homes (JavaScript must be enabled on your internet browser to be able to view the live image).

http://www.savior.org/

Catholic friend, accept Jesus Christ as your Savior by faith. Jesus is not locked away in a gold box or in a monstrance. He’s sitting at the right hand of the Father and He’s waiting for you to forsake your dependence on your church membership and religious laundry list and accept Him as your Savior by faith alone.

“At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time. So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.” – Matthew 24:23-28

“Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” – Hebrews 10:11-14

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “See Jesus via web cam, 24/7!

      1. Well, my question may have been just a bit of a “red herring” but I think it’s legitimate. You state that you prefer Aquinas’ view on transubstantiation over Caroline’s but I’m very curious if you also support his opposition to the notion of the immaculate conception?

        Like

      2. I’m interested in your motive for questioning. For example. An Orthodox may agree with St. Augustine’s Original Sin theology; however, they reject many of positions on the will of man. Therefore, it’s perfectly acceptable to accept some positions as solid and others has weak. It doesn’t negate their positions on all arguments. You would then be guilty of fallacy, again. Also, I’m not saying I agree with the Orthodoxy’s position on Augustine, but I respect the ability of critical theology and pick what is defensible of their positions.

        Like

      3. I wasn’t making a huge point but I think it’s very interesting that the church’s leading theologian, who is often appealed to in such matters as transubstantiation, didn’t support the immaculate conception, which later became an infallible doctrine. As I recall, Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the church and a Dominican, like Aquinas, also refuted the immaculate conception. She actually claimed Mary visited her and told her those pressing for the church to define the immaculate conception as dogma (primarily the Franciscans) were in error.

        Like

      4. Oh so we agree that really his assertions on the Transubstantiation have nothing to do with the Immaculate conception.

        Your point was a red herring, nothing more, to direct away from Aquinas’ exceptional points on the Transubstantiation.

        Like

      5. Huh? I already conceded my first reply was a friendly “red herring.” But, seriously, if we’re going to refer to Aquinas regarding transubstantiation, let’s also see what he has to say about the immaculate conception!

        Like

      6. Huh? I’m here talking about his position on Transubstantiation. It doesn’t matter if his position is positive one in favor of Transubstantiation and negative on the Immaculate conception. Aquinas’ views on the Immaculate conception have no bases on his views on Transubstantiation; ergo, it doesn’t matter.

        Of course, Aquinas would have those views due to the understand of Original Sin during the middle ages as Sin was taught to pass through marital acts. Your assistance to keeping bringing it up is silly.

        Like

      7. I think you actually mean “material” but we digress. No, since Aquinas came down on the wrong side of the immaculate conception dogma according to infallible papal declaration then his opinion on other dogmas is suspect.

        Like

      8. Sure, If you think that’s what I am suppose to mean when I am referring to acts within the frameworks of marriage.

        “No, since Aquinas came down on the wrong side of the immaculate conception dogma according to infallible papal declaration then his opinion on other dogmas is suspect.”

        And no…sorry. you could not be more wrong, your could try, but you would not succeed.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. OK…I now follow you on the use of “marital.” You seem to pick and choose which of Aquinas’ opinions you agree with. But since Mary appeared to Catherine of Siena and told her she was not immaculately conceived then perhaps Thomas was right about the Immaculate Conception and the infallible popes were wrong.

        Like

      10. I’m curious–well I already know the answer–can you provide a primary source for Catherine Siena declaration? A legitimately historical account that is not apocryphal? Primarily a source collected from Raymund of Capua?

        Like

      11. Well, it there is no primary source from Raymund of Capua, which indicates the alleged comment from Catherine of Siena is an unsubstantiated claim that is nothing more than a result of hearsay.

        Thou Shall not bear false witness… …

        Like

      12. Haha! Do you know who Pope Benedict XIV is? He lives 300 years after the claim! Furthermore, he says by examining the hearsay that it’s not a correct vision.

        Your grasping for straw!

        Like

      13. So then Most was grasping for straws, also? Of course it’s not a “correct vision” because it disagreed with the increasingly popular dogma. In the fight over the immaculate conception the Franciscans “won” and the Dominicans “lost.”

        Like

      14. Again, the theology of Original Sin wasn’t fully developed during the period of Aquinas. It was thought to be spread through marital relations, I believe this theology came from Augustine.

        Furthermore, The theology of Original Sin is a creation of Augustine, so you probably don’t believe it as it’s not ‘Biblical’ or you do accept that part and his theology when examining scripture.

        Looks like you probably pick and choose as well.

        Like

      15. We can argue over such theological topics as “transubstantiation,” and the “immaculate conception” until the cows come home and neither one of us will be satisfied, which is why I avoid extended debates. Your church teaches people of all religions and even atheists will be saved if they “follow the light they are given” and are “good.” But since nobody’s perfect, how “good” must you be? Where is the dividing line? Of course, Jesus said there are none who are “good” and only those who accept Him as Savior by faith alone will be saved. The difference between salvation and damnation was presented by Jesus in his discourse on the tax collector with no plea and the “good” Pharisee. May the Lord open your eyes to salvation by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

        Like

      16. Furthermore we do pick and choose, you’re right. We also pick and choose what is acceptable from the Church Fathers, like Augustine of Hippo for instance.

        I know several experts in the field of history. Some things they state I agree with and somethings I don’t. However, it’s simply anti-intellectual if I’m to dismiss them entirely because of it!

        This is my point and yet here we are still talking about Catherine of Siena and the Immaculate Conception when your post is about the Eucharist. All the while, Caroline is begging me to enlighten her on Thomas Aquinas. A magnificent red herring in attempt to disprove Thomas’ position on Transubstantiation, because you know compared his intellect you stand nowhere in the vicinity on such a topic.

        Caroline, I would certainly begin to discuss the matter in full with Aquinas’ thoughts. However, Tom here has been known to censor comments. In fact, he’ll only allow comments he thinks he can deflect. Every comment that I write is short due to this behavior on his part. It wouldn’t serve me any good to explain in detail, if Tom is going to delete it from the conversation, out of his fear that you might be convinced and converted.

        Like

      17. Philip, you began this exchange with an assertion about Aquinas’ views being “better” than mine, and have yet to explain and support it. Whether or not he is to be counted a witness for or against any particular Roman Catholic doctrine, you apparently agree with his view on transubstantiation, so what is your view, never mind Aquinas, and why is it better?

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s