Wheat and grapes ONLY!!! Another case of straining for gnats but missing salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.

For Catholics, the mass is the absolute centerpiece of their belief system. During the ritual, the priest allegedly changes bread wafers and wine into the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. The attendees then line up to consume the Jesus wafers and wine, believing that, during the fifteen minutes their stomach acids are breaking them down, the consecrated elements impart graces that will enable them to avoid sin so that they will hopefully be able to merit Heaven.

This morning, I was listening to the 11/27/13 podcast of “Calling All Catholics” talk radio show (The Station of the Cross, WLOF, 101.7 FM, Buffalo, NY) with moderator Mike Denz and host, Catholic priest, Peter Calabrese, taking questions from listeners, and a couple of interesting questions came up regarding the bread wafers and wine used in the Catholic mass.

Mike Denz: “We have a question from Pauline who emailed us and she wants to know,…during Prohibition in the United States…did priests have access to wine for communion and, if not, did they only consecrate the hosts? And then the second (question) is, what do priests do for communion if they are in regions that do not have access to the standard bread and wine?”

Priest Calabrese responded that during Prohibition there were no restrictions on alcoholic wine for religious purposes. Regarding the second question, Calabrese said church law mandates the bread wafers used at mass can only be made from wheat flour and the wine can only be made from grapes.

Catholic Canon Law #924 states, “The Most Sacred Eucharistic Sacrifice must be celebrated with bread and wine, with which a small quantity of water is to be mixed. The bread must be made of wheat alone recently made so that there is no danger of corruption. The wine must be natural wine of the grape and not corrupt.”

If wheat wafers and grape wine are not readily available in a certain locale, they must be imported. Calabrese noted that an exception was made when the Jesuits exported Catholicism to the Far East in the 16th century and wheat and grapes were not available so rice wafers and rice wine were substituted, but this was only a temporary measure and was eventually rescinded.

What this means is, if the elements are made with something other than wheat and grapes, then the sacrament is “invalidated.” The priest can only change the elements into Jesus if they are made from wheat flour and grapes!

Oy vey.

No, I’m not making any of this up (see the article below).

The Catholic doctrine that priests change bread wafers and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus, a woefully faulty interpretation of John 6 and the Last Supper passages, and that physically eating these elements imparts eternal life, defies a spiritual understanding of Scripture on many levels. Belief/trusting in Christ as Savior by faith alone is the meaning of John 6, not eating Jesus wafers. And the painfully scrupulous particularity regarding the ingredients of the elements just further illustrates the fact that Catholicism took a terribly wrong turn with all of this.

But the Catholic system is FILLED with these types of technical particularities that rival the elaborate legalities of the Pharisees of first-century Judea. I’m so glad Jesus freed me from the chains of Catholic legalism and ritual. Religious sacraments and ceremony don’t save. Accept Jesus Christ as your Savior today.


Do hosts used for the Holy Eucharist have to be made of wheat?
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/do-hosts-used-for-the-holy-eucharist-have-to-be-made-of-wheat-what-if-someone-is-allergic-to-wheat/

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Wheat and grapes ONLY!!! Another case of straining for gnats but missing salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.

  1. We were talking about this the other day when I realized this: if the priest can turn the elements into Jesus and re-sacrifice him for the millionth time (quite literally), then the mass is still just as powerless to anything for the Catholic. Otherwise you’d think one communion was enough–not to mention that Hebrews states that Jesus was sacrificed once for all and sound reason would point out the obvious error in relying on even just one communion to do anything more than what Jesus already did.

    But they do it repeatedly saying that Jesus is there, yet he is still just as powerless as he was on the cross to remove a Catholic’s sin. To my conscience the Eucharist is utter blasphemy.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks, Gene. As a Catholic reading the Bible for the first time, I could not reconcile the mass with Hebrews. The book was a real crisis moment for me as a Catholic. Yes, the eucharist is blasphemy and makes the Catholic laity completely dependent on the clergy for their salvation.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Brother Tom, I’d like your response, as well as Brother Gene’s here.

      Gene, In accord to your critique of the Catholic theology of the Eucharist. The major issue lies I believe in the idea of justification and simul justus et peccator. In traditional Protestant theology, one is believed to be both sinner and justified by their baptism. However, even as Augustine concludes (although wrongly interpreted by Luther) in Catholic theology the sinner is washed clean during their Baptism from original sin, but the result of concupiscence remains. The graces of the sacraments, including the Eucharist, is that Graces are abounded to help protect our tendency to commit sin.

      Christ has removed our sin with his death at cross and resurrection. God gives us freely the free gift of salvation; however, faith in the Catholic tradition is not a state of being, but rather a verb of action. God’s Grace comes to us Prima Gratia and we are given the free will to co-operate with that Grace.

      In fact, if we look in the scripture at John 6, Christ’s own disciples said (I paraphrase from memory) “This man says we can eat his flesh, this is a hard lesson, who can believe it?”

      At this moment, Jesus could have corrected their understanding, which he did in other instances; however, Jesus doubles down by saying that his body is true food.

      St. Paul reiterates Christ’s double down in the first letter to the Corinthians Chapter 10:

      “16 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?” KJV

      Like

      1. Oh, I’ve posted many times regarding Catholicism’s serious misinterpretation of John 6 and the Last Supper passages. Catholic apologists always say a literal understanding is called for because Christ did not stop those who interpreted His words in John 6 literally and walked away. You know of course the many passages in the Bible that refer to seeing, they might see and not perceive; and hearing, they might hear and not understand. These people could not see past the physical to the spiritual. John 6 is all about belief. I think believe/belief/believing (trusting in Christ) is mentioned six or seven times in the passage. If you take this passage literally then what do you do with “If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever” (v.51)? Does eating a bread wafer impart salvation? Sadly, many Catholics think so. Jesus even explains at the end in v.63 that it’s all about belief and the spiritual, He was not talking about the physical. Believers do not stumble over 1 Corinthians. Christ commanded us to remember His sacrifice for us through the broken bread and cup. I do not approach these symbols casually. When the early Christians came together and broke bread to commemorate Christ’s sacrifice, they did not have the processed bread wafers Catholics use today. The early Christians broke bread loaves and pieces and crumbs surely scattered onto the table and floor. According to Catholicism’s unfortunate interpretation, those poor early Christians must have spent hours scouring the table and floor for Jesus crumbs. It’s the spiritual, Philip, not the physical. Catholicism went off into the weeds.

        Like

      2. But I did address Paul’s words in Corinthians. As for the fathers, I don’t refer to them since they are at odds with each other on various issues.

        Like

      3. They are at odds on various issues, but one would be hard press to find them at odds on the Eucharist. Furthermore, Catholic Doctrine doesn’t claim there are many sacrifices, it claims that Mass is a participation in the same sacrifice in accord with Christ’s words in the Gospels and so Hebrews would not contradict this one sacrifice.

        Like

      4. In regards to eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ, Christ says that if you do not, “there is no life in you.” Furthermore, Christ doesn’t just let the objection pass and let disciples leave, he reiterates the point by saying his body is true food.

        In a manner of speaking, we agree that it’s about spiritual faith because partaking in the Eucharist allows the Grace of God to grow within our souls to deepen our faith in God. In this regard by helping our faith grow through this sacrament it does give one salvation by continuing to grow their faith.

        Also, the bit about early Christians and crumbs is nothing more than silly conjecture.

        Like

      5. Philip, some of what you wrote is a bit over my head. I don’t pretend to know much about Catholic theology, but the way I see it is Christ died once for all and by faith alone our sins are washed away. And yes, faith is active and not without works. But in our frail human state, with the remnants of sin and our tendency to turn away from God (at least for me), no work that I do will ever keep me in the grace of God (just as no work could ever justify me).

        But more on topic, from what I understand, Catholic theology puts an overemphasis on the ordinances and on the believer to maintain something that only God can do. And like Tom said, I don’t agree with the literal interpretation of John 6 or 1 Corinthians 10; and if Jesus were crucified once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12), there is no need for every priest to assume he can bring Christ down to be re-sacrificed at every Mass around the globe daily. It goes beyond the Scriptures.

        Liked by 2 people

      6. Thanks for response, I’m simply just want to dialogue about the disagreement. I will say this as a Catholic Catechist, as I told Tom, The mass is not a re-sacrifice, it is a participation in the Same sacrifice. Now, I don’t pretend that will convince you, only that according to Catholic theology there is no contradiction to scripture with Hebrews.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. Philip, the Catholic church tries to skirt clear Biblical teaching by saying the mass is a “re-presentation” of the same sacrifice but it’s impossible. Jesus said, It is finished. The temple veil was ripped from top to bottom. Jesus sat down next to the Father. There is no more ongoing sacrifice like the OT.

        Like

      8. Well, Brother Tom, do you have any sources such as the Catechism, credible Catholic Theologians, Church Fathers etc. that do claim that Mass is a “re-presentation?”

        So far as I’ve come across, I’ll attempt to explain it in simple terms, it’s allowing the body of Christ–the Church to be, in a sense, taken to the actual event of the Crucifixion. In this regard, I do not disagree with you that “it is done.”

        Our discussion here is at the heart of the fracture within Christ’s body. As He prays in John 17, he desires us to be in communion with one another.

        The matter of the Real Presence of the Eucharist is complex, yet it is still either-or. Either the Eucharist is the Body of Jesus Christ–and the single most Christcentric experience one can have in this world you’re missing. Or…If he’s not there, I’m an idolater. So because of this, the Fundamental dispute about the Eucharist is not just about Truth but about being–Who is here. I’ll admit, whichever answer to the debate that is wrong, is extremely wrong.

        The complexity of the issue shows from Protestants reformers disagreeing on the issue. Although Lutherans do not subscribe to Transubstantiation, they do believe in the real presence of the Body of Christ.

        The Book of Concord says, “We know that not only the Roman church but also the Greek church teach the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper.” Cyril is also cited to the effect that Christ also dwells in us bodily in the Supper through the sharing of his flesh.”

        Note: The Lutheran reformers even submit to the traditions of the Church Fathers

        Robert Kolb, Timothy J. Wengert, and Charles P. Arand, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), 595.

        [81] Second, it is done so that Christ’s words will arouse, strengthen, and confirm the hearers’ faith in the nature and benefits of this sacrament (that is, the presence of Christ’s body and blood and the forgiveness of sins, and all the benefits that have been won for us by Christ’s death and the shedding of his blood, which are given to us in his testament (Ibid, 607.)

        Like

      9. CCC 1366: “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.”

        Philip, I would recommend two books to you if you’re serious about examining the differences between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity. First read “The Gospel According to Rome” by James G. McCarthy followed by “Letters Between a Catholic and an Evangelical” by McCarthy and Catholic priest, John Waiss. Lord bless you in your search for Him and salvation by God’s grace through faith in Christ alone.

        Like

      10. The re-sacrifice idea I got from a John MacArthur series on Roman Catholicism. He quoted largely from a Catholic theologian named Ott. So I think it’s Ott who said that Jesus is sacrificed in the mass.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. As Tom quoted the Catechism, I think it’s important to make the distinction between re-present as being more than and making present. Making present is not making another sacrifice. Whether one agrees or not integrity of either side of the argument is benefited from a truthful representation.

        Liked by 1 person

      12. Categorizing the mass as a re-presentation of Jesus’s once-for-all-time sacrifice on Calvary is a farce but it keeps the priests in business. Priests “celebrate” 350,000 masses every day throughout the world but Jesus is not a victim on even one of your altars. If anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe it.

        Like

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