What the RCC endorses

[Zenas]

John 3:5 reads: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Infant baptism and the resulting theology troubles me. The notion of baptizing someone who has absolutely no choice in the matter is just wrong. Imagine grabbing a 30-year-old nonbeliever off the street and baptizing them because you think it will impart some sort of grace toward them and bring them to salvation.

In the epistle to those at Phillipi, we read that people should work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Nothing in there requiring them to get baptized at the same time, nor teaching them to baptize their children.

1. Unless you believe baptism imparts grace, infant baptism will always remain a mystery to you. I believe it does impart grace, based on John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:4 and many other passages. Of course 100% of the early church fathers taught baptismal regeneration. I realize some here think these men were apostate but they were not. They constantly railed against apostasy. Significantly, they reduced to writing many of the practices and beliefs extant in the early Christian community that were so widely held they aren't even mentioned in scripture.

2. There were in fact young children who were baptized in N.T. times. The N.T. gives four (4) instances where entire households were baptized. In those days a household included extended family and servants. A household may be as large as 25-30 people. For none of these four households to have young children would be against the greatest of odds. Remember also that Peter said immediately after his command to repent and be baptized,"For the promise is for you and your children . . . ." " And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16 But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." This is pretty strong evidence that Jesus approved of infant baptism.

 

[DHK]

I have no idea where you would come up with such a conclusion. Jesus received the baptism of John for the "fulfillment of all righteousness", whatever that meant. But it was not the baptism that Jesus commanded for us as Paul makes abundantly clear in Acts 19.

You said:

John 3:5 was NEVER viewed as anything but baptismal regeneration until someone with a very low view of Christ, definitely one of the reformers of the 16th Century, decided otherwise. Of course you have to denounce the meaning Jesus attributed to it or your entire house of cards comes tumbling down.

If Baptism = new birth, and Jesus was baptized, then Jesus was a sinner that needed salvation or regeneration which is blasphemy. That is where I got that from.

Baptism does not impart grace; it imparts H2O, water; you get wet.
In John 3:5 the Spirit is the Holy Spirit and water is representative of the Word of God. Water is symbolic of washing.
At the Temple before they entered they went through a number of ceremonnial washings. Water washes.
[FONT=&quot]Psalms 119:9 BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
--The question is asked: How shall a young man cleanse his way?
The answer: By obedience to the Word of God. It is the Word that cleanses.
Both OT and NT teaches this.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--It is the word that cleanses. As water cleanses physically; the Word cleanses spiritually.

Note well that there are two elements necessary for the New Birth:

1. The Holy Spirit, and

2. Water which represents the Word--plainly taught here:
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.[/FONT] [/FONT]

It is impossible to be born again without the Holy Spirit.
It is impossible to be born again without the Word of God (the gospel).
And that is what John 3:5 teaches. There is no teaching of baptism in John 3:5 whatsoever; no allusion to it, no mention of it at all. It is entirely out of the context of the discussion that Jesus was having with Nicodemus.
[/FONT]

 

[PreachTony]

1. Unless you believe baptism imparts grace, infant baptism will always remain a mystery to you. I believe it does impart grace, based on John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:4 and many other passages. Of course 100% of the early church fathers taught baptismal regeneration. I realize some here think these men were apostate but they were not. They constantly railed against apostasy. Significantly, they reduced to writing many of the practices and beliefs extant in the early Christian community that were so widely held they aren't even mentioned in scripture.

I'd kindly ask you to provide evidence that "100% of the early church fathers" taught baptismal regeneration.

2. There were in fact young children who were baptized in N.T. times. The N.T. gives four (4) instances where entire households were baptized. In those days a household included extended family and servants. A household may be as large as 25-30 people. For none of these four households to have young children would be against the greatest of odds. Remember also that Peter said immediately after his command to repent and be baptized,"For the promise is for you and your children . . . ." " And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16 But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." This is pretty strong evidence that Jesus approved of infant baptism.

We can get into a strong semantics argument over this statement. I don't know your stance on the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, but to say that "whole household" obviously included everyone in the household but to say that Jesus died for the "whole world" only means He died for the elect...well, you can see the dangerous ground that treads.

I have no problem with children getting baptized. I was baptized at 10 years old. I just think the child should have a profession of faith first. I don't recall any instance of someone being baptized without first believing. Even then, the baptism did not free me from the sin in my life nor from the original sin of Adam. That was accomplished by my acceptance of Christ's sacrifice; through blood atonement. The Bible is pretty clear in saying without shedding of blood is no remission.

 

[The Biblicist]

Don't put your fingers in your ears and climb back into your warm and safe "cocoon". Inside your cocoon you can wrap the security blanket of "my inner voice tells me my interpretation of the Bible is correct. I don't need any historical evidence that any early Christians believed my doctrines.' Clearly, there is no historical evidence for what you believe about the Lord's Supper but quite the opposite. Also, nobody in the Early Church was disputing what Ignatius and everyone else was saying about partaking Christ's body and blood. The New Testament could not be clearer: St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians (I Cor 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?'

The obvious truth is that his writings were corrupted by someone or we would not have two alternative readings. Both may be equally corrupted. Rome cannot prove its doctrine by INSPIRED writings and thus it crawls back into its security blanket of obvious uninspired writings that it selected and preserved as the traditions of men. Jesus NEVER based his doctrine on uninspired traditions of men but ALWAYS on "it is written."

It is obvious that Jesus did not intend nor was it his design that his audience take his words literally in John 6 and thus kill and eat him on the spot. Moreover, he provides transitional language from literal to metaphorical throughout this context (Jn. 6:35-36; 45; 60-65) and Peter understood that what he was providing was the "WORDS of life" rather than a command to literally kill him on the spot by eating his body and drinking his blood. He told them explicitly that "MY WORDS" - meaning the words just spoken to them about eating his flesh and drinking his blood were "spirit" or spiritual rather than to be taken literal.

If his words were to be understood literally then he was demanding they kill him on the spot, or at minimum was justifying them murdering him or how else could they partake of eternal life in this literal manner without literally taking his life from him? The Roman Catholic view is nonsense.

 

[Yeshua1]

John 3:5 was NEVER viewed as anything but baptismal regeneration until someone with a very low view of Christ, definitely one of the reformers of the 16th Century, decided otherwise. Of course you have to denounce the meaning Jesus attributed to it or your entire house of cards comes tumbling down.


Think about it, if baptism does nothing more than get you wet, it is completely futile. Do you think Jesus would command you to engage in a futile activity?

the bible itself cortidicts you rhough, as the Eunoch asked what prevented him from getting water baptised now, and it was based upon IF he had faith in risen Christ!

NO examples im the Bible that any other then those who had placed faith in Christ were given that water baptism!

You cannot get that theology from the Bible, but only from doctrines deviaiting from the faith!

 

[Zenas]

I'd kindly ask you to provide evidence that "100% of the early church fathers" taught baptismal regeneration.

Maybe I should have said none of the early church fathers wrote that baptism was symbolic. Certainly there were some who said nothing at all about baptism. I don't think you can find any pre-reformation writings that say baptism is symbolic.

We can get into a strong semantics argument over this statement. I don't know your stance on the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, but to say that "whole household" obviously included everyone in the household but to say that Jesus died for the "whole world" only means He died for the elect...well, you can see the dangerous ground that treads.

I think you would agree that infants would have been regarded as members of their household and in none of the four instances of household baptism in the N.T. does the writer exclude them. What other conclusion can you draw?

I don't regard myself as either Calvinist or Arminian but I really like this verse: " This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." So yes, I do believe Jesus died for the whole world.

I have no problem with children getting baptized. I was baptized at 10 years old. I just think the child should have a profession of faith first. I don't recall any instance of someone being baptized without first believing. Even then, the baptism did not free me from the sin in my life nor from the original sin of Adam. That was accomplished by my acceptance of Christ's sacrifice; through blood atonement. The Bible is pretty clear in saying without shedding of blood is no remission.

I can see you have great difficulty even discussing sacramental baptism. Like I said, unless you believe baptism imparts grace, infant baptism will always remain a mystery to you.

I agree that the blood atonement of Christ is what remits sins. Baptism and the other sacraments are merely the means of transmission of grace. It's like watering a flower bed. The water is what really maintains the healthy growth of the flowers. But the source of the water is a faucet across the yard. You get the water from the faucet to the flowers via a hose which transmits the water. Sacraments don't impart grace any more than a hose stimulates plant growth. Sacraments merely act as the modality of receiving grace, just like a hose serves as the modality of a flower bed receiving water.

As an aside, I wouldn't treat Hebrews 9:22 too expansively. When Jesus healed the paralytic and pronounced his sins forgiven, there was no shedding of blood. He hadn't died on the cross and He didn't tell the man to go out and kill a goat. So there are instances of sins being forgiven without shedding of blood.

 

[Yeshua1]

Maybe I should have said none of the early church fathers wrote that baptism was symbolic. Certainly there were some who said nothing at all about baptism. I don't think you can find any pre-reformation writings that say baptism is symbolic.


I think you would agree that infants would have been regarded as members of their household and in none of the four instances of household baptism in the N.T. does the writer exclude them. What other conclusion can you draw?

I don't regard myself as either Calvinist or Arminian but I really like this verse: " This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." So yes, I do believe Jesus died for the whole world.

I can see you have great difficulty even discussing sacramental baptism. Like I said, unless you believe baptism imparts grace, infant baptism will always remain a mystery to you.

I agree that the blood atonement of Christ is what remits sins. Baptism and the other sacraments are merely the means of transmission of grace. It's like watering a flower bed. The water is what really maintains the healthy growth of the flowers. But the source of the water is a faucet across the yard. You get the water from the faucet to the flowers via a hose which transmits the water. Sacraments don't impart grace any more than a hose stimulates plant growth. Sacraments merely act as the modality of receiving grace, just like a hose serves as the modality of a flower bed receiving water.

As an aside, I wouldn't treat Hebrews 9:22 too expansively. When Jesus healed the paralytic and pronounced his sins forgiven, there was no shedding of blood. He hadn't died on the cross and He didn't tell the man to go out and kill a goat. So there are instances of sins being forgiven without shedding of blood.

ANY sin that God has EVER forgiven though was on the basis of the shed blood of Jesus, when he died upon the Cross, and again, Paul is very clear that we are justified before God at the very moment that we received jesus thru faith, NOT in any ordinance like water baptism, r baptism, and once saved, we are to co perate with the holy spirit now in us to be sauctified, not by partaking of any "sacraments" of Grace. as we have ALL the Grace God ever intends to give us once born again!

 

[DHK]

Maybe I should have said none of the early church fathers wrote that baptism was symbolic. Certainly there were some who said nothing at all about baptism. I don't think you can find any pre-reformation writings that say baptism is symbolic.

I believe you can find plenty of groups that believed baptism was symbolic, and many of the ECF as well. Tertullian was one such individual. He changed his views on baptism during the course of his life.
But that is not the point is it?
Our authority is not the ECF from whence comes the major heresies introduced into Christianity. Our authority is the Word of God itself. The RCC has gone astray by putting their faith and authority in sources outside of the Word of God. They are not willing to take at face value what God has said in His Word.

I think you would agree that infants would have been regarded as members of their household and in none of the four instances of household baptism in the N.T. does the writer exclude them. What other conclusion can you draw?

That is called eisigesis. And yet there is not one instance in the Bible, anywhere of any infant ever being baptized. You are just guessing that it must be so. Infants don't have faith, a requirement for baptism. Your conclusions are absolutely false. Again, you do not have the Word of God as your authority and no solid exegesis.

I don't regard myself as either Calvinist or Arminian but I really like this verse: " This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." So yes, I do believe Jesus died for the whole world.

This has nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism. When the "elect" was mentioned it refers to those that believed, IOW, those who put their faith and trust in Christ. An infant can't do that. We don't know who is elect and who isn't. We leave that in God's hand. Man is justified by faith and faith alone. That is the one requirement for salvation.

I can see you have great difficulty even discussing sacramental baptism. Like I said, unless you believe baptism imparts grace, infant baptism will always remain a mystery to you.

Who wouldn't have a problem since it doesn't exist. Since it doesn't exist it doesn't impart grace. It is a superstition. You can bathe an infant in RCC holy water just like a Hindu does in the polluted waters of the Ganges River. The outcome is the same. You still remain unregenerated--apart from God and on your way to hell. Baptism doesn't save. If one trusts in their baptism for salvation, and at the end of their lives stands before God, and God should ask them: "Why should I let you into my Heaven?" If your answer is: "Because the RCC baptized me," then the Lord will answer: "Depart from my I never knew you." Knowing Christ is not on the basis of baptism.

I agree that the blood atonement of Christ is what remits sins. Baptism and the other sacraments are merely the means of transmission of grace. It's like watering a flower bed. The water is what really maintains the healthy growth of the flowers. But the source of the water is a faucet across the yard. You get the water from the faucet to the flowers via a hose which transmits the water. Sacraments don't impart grace any more than a hose stimulates plant growth. Sacraments merely act as the modality of receiving grace, just like a hose serves as the modality of a flower bed receiving water.

Total nonsense. Sacramental baptism is a superstition.

As an aside, I wouldn't treat Hebrews 9:22 too expansively. When Jesus healed the paralytic and pronounced his sins forgiven, there was no shedding of blood. He hadn't died on the cross and He didn't tell the man to go out and kill a goat. So there are instances of sins being forgiven without shedding of blood.

That was pre-cross. Jesus was looking forward to the cross.
It is Jesus that saves: before the cross and after the cross.
Do you deny that Christ saved him?

 

[PreachTony]

This has nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism. When the "elect" was mentioned it refers to those that believed, IOW, those who put their faith and trust in Christ. An infant can't do that. We don't know who is elect and who isn't. We leave that in God's hand. Man is justified by faith and faith alone. That is the one requirement for salvation.

I'll take the blame for bringing the Calvinism/Arminianism aspect into the argument. I only did so to show the potentially shaky rhetorical and semantical ground we can tread when debating these issues. My bad. :tear:

 

[The Biblicist]

As an aside, I wouldn't treat Hebrews 9:22 too expansively. When Jesus healed the paralytic and pronounced his sins forgiven, there was no shedding of blood. He hadn't died on the cross and He didn't tell the man to go out and kill a goat. So there are instances of sins being forgiven without shedding of blood.

There are no instances of sins being forgiven without shedding of blood. All the prophets preached remission of sins through faith in the Messiah (Acts 10:43). Yet the Messiah had not yet died on the cross. However, all the sacrifices under the Old Covenant were TYPES of that shedding of blood by the Messiah. Hence, faith in the Messiah was faith in God's provision for sin as the lamb slain "from the foundation of the world."

 

[Yeshua1]

There are no instances of sins being forgiven without shedding of blood. All the prophets preached remission of sins through faith in the Messiah (Acts 10:43). Yet the Messiah had not yet died on the cross. However, all the sacrifices under the Old Covenant were TYPES of that shedding of blood by the Messiah. Hence, faith in the Messiah was faith in God's provision for sin as the lamb slain "from the foundation of the world."

When the RCC has the shedding of his blood in mass every service, isn;t that violating the once and forever part of Hebrews, and is rendering His death/sacrifice null and void?

 

[The Biblicist]

When the RCC has the shedding of his blood in mass every service, isn;t that violating the once and forever part of Hebrews, and is rendering His death/sacrifice null and void?

Of course they deny that. However, they call it a sacrifice, and they claim the bread and wine are literally transformed into His literal flesh and blood each time anew and afresh. What it is is pure blasphemy!

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course they deny that. However, they call it a sacrifice, and they claim the bread and wine are literally transformed into His literal flesh and blood each time anew and afresh. What it is is pure blasphemy!

They are trampling underfoot the shed blood of Christ, and that will bring severe problems to them from God!

 

[Walter]

They are trampling underfoot the shed blood of Christ, and that will bring severe problems to them from God!

Hardly, the Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which is invariably misunderstood by you and other anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass. The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn't make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is "an unbloody manner" This is, of course, much more than your 'it's merely a memorial service and nothing more' idea which was not believed until the reformation and certainly we know by the writings of the early Christians that it wasn't believed by the Early Church.

 

[DHK]

Hardly, the Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which is invariably misunderstood by you and other anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass. The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn't make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is "an unbloody manner" This is, of course, much more than your 'it's merely a memorial service and nothing more' idea which was not believed until the reformation and certainly we know by the writings of the early Christians that it wasn't believed by the Early Church.

What you need to do is step outside the box of the RCC and examine what they claim to believe vs. what they do believe. The two are not always the same.
Remember I say this as a former Catholic.

A good example is idolatry. I would have been offended if you would have accused me of committing idolatry when I was a Catholic. I equated that to the practice of Hinduism.
But praying to Mary, to the saints in heaven, before the stations of the cross, all, according to the Bible are forms of idolatry. Once the Bible is properly understood it must be admitted that this is idolatry.
The RCC is not our authority. The Bible is. We must go according to what the Bible says; not according to what the RCC does. What do they practice in contrast to what the Bible says. What is practiced cannot be justified by the Word of God. It is impossible.
The worship of Mary cannot be justified by redefining worship, breaking it down into different forms of worship--latria, dulia, etc. All worship is to be directed to God. All prayer is to be directed to God. Any prayer directed to Mary is idolatry. The RCC is guilty of idolatry over and over again. It cannot be justified from a Biblical standpoint.

The same is true with the mass. From a Biblical standpoint it cannot be justified. Christ's present ministry is: that he sits on the right hand of the throne of God making intercession for the saints.
This statement of yours:

Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is "an unbloody manner"

is absolutely blasphemous. Jesus died once and for all. He made a one time sacrifice and then it was finished.

[FONT=&quot]Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:[/FONT]

There is only one sacrifice--one and only one sacrifice.
We can but remember that sacrifice. It is never offered again--bloody or bloodless. Christ does not continue to offer himself to the Father. That is heresy.

Heb.10:12: Once he had offered himself he then sat down at the right hand of God--never to offer himself again. The Mass is a blasphemous invention of the wicked imaginations of wicked men.

 

[KJVRICH]

agreed! DHK

the RCC always says that it is not a sacrifice...however they pray at every mass the following....


Pray, my brothers and sisters, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father” and they answer, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his Church.

 

[Bro. James]

The best the Romish System can assure is a purgatory with the hope of being bailed out with enough sale of indulgences, rosaries recited, and icons venerated-- for a special dispensation to pass by Peter at the gates of pearl.

The True Gospel promises eternal life with our Creator-- in heaven through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, once for all--He said "It is finished."

"These things(the Words of God) are written that you may know that you have eternal life."

Why do many not believe? Many have scales on the eyes--the scales of strong delusion, believing a lie.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Yeshua1]

Hardly, the Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which is invariably misunderstood by you and other anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass. The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn't make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is "an unbloody manner" This is, of course, much more than your 'it's merely a memorial service and nothing more' idea which was not believed until the reformation and certainly we know by the writings of the early Christians that it wasn't believed by the Early Church.

Except the Bible condemns that viewpoint, so whom will you trust, mere men or God almighty in this?

And those whose answer is to heed RCC views, warnings from hebrews apply, as we have only ONE sacrifice one and forever already done that can atone for sin!

 

[Protestant]

Hardly, the Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which is invariably misunderstood by you and other anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass. The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn't make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is "an unbloody manner" This is, of course, much more than your 'it's merely a memorial service and nothing more' idea which was not believed until the reformation and certainly we know by the writings of the early Christians that it wasn't believed by the Early Church.

Presentation: a show or display; the act of presenting something to sight or view;

Re-presentation: a presentation done again and again and again……

To the strongly deluded wafer-worshipper Walter the Apostate’s ludicrous attempt at making sense out of nonsense is quite reasonable and respectable.

All Catholic priests have been endowed with almighty power to re-create their Creator by mindlessly following a prescribed religious Roman formula.

It matters not that he had just violated the virginal sanctity of the altar boy, altar girl, and fellow priest.

His holy ordination supersedes his unholy moral failings.

To the discerning Spirit-filled Christian the sacrifice of the Mass is an ongoing, repetitive display…..a display of the works of Antichrist, showing the predicted Antichrist in his true colors.

In A.D. 1120 the Waldenses saw the Mass for what it was:

What are the works of Antichrist? The first work of Antichrist is to take away the truth and to change it into a falsehood, error and heresy. The second work of Antichrist is to cover falsehood over with a semblance of truth, and to assert and maintain lies by the name of faith and graces……What are the works that proceed from these first works? The first is that it perverts the service of Latria; that is, the worship properly due to God alone, by giving it to Antichrist himself, to his works, to the creature male or female, to the deceased saints, to images, carcasses and relics. His works are the sacraments, especially the sacrament of the Eucharist, which he adoreth as God, and as Jesus Christ, together with the things blessed and consecrated by him, and prohibits the worshipping of God alone. (Jean Paul Perrin, History of the Ancient Christians, orig. pub. 1618, p. 244-45, Book 3, Chapter 8, Treatise on Antichrist.)

According to official Roman Catholic dogma the Eucharist is to be worshipped:

In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1378)

Note the canopy to shield their god from the heat.

A god who melts could be problematic to their faith.

 

[Walter]

agreed! DHK

the RCC always says that it is not a sacrifice...however they pray at every mass the following....


Pray, my brothers and sisters, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father” and they answer, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good and the good of all his Church.

Which shows you really had no clue what that meant as a Catholic. The Church teaches it is not a bloody sacrifice. The Church teaches the mass IS a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.