“Accipite et Comedite”: How the World Has Been Deceived

Over a billion of Catholics around the world believed in the power of what they called Eucharist or Holy Communion –

a kind of unleavened bread that they received every time they celebrate their mass. Unlike some Protestant churches that also commemorate the death of the Lord through their own version of the Holy Supper three or four times a year, Catholics have a deep devotion towards this celebration because they believed that this is the summit and the center of Christian life. Hence, Catholics receive the Communion every week or if possible every day according to what their Canon Law states. And unlike the Protestants, Catholics believed that the very bread they received during the mass was transformed into the actual body of the Savior after been consecrated by the priest – a divine process where the bread and the wine transformed completely into the actual body and blood of Christ, “just like Jesus changed the essence of water into wine at Cana”, as some Catholic apologists said. Thus, from simple bread, after the consecration, it becomes a divine substance worthy to be worshiped by all Catholics.

I really admire how often Catholics remember the death of the Lord, but devotion is not enough to please God because there is no other way to please Him but to submit ourselves to His words and righteousness. This also applies to the teaching of how Christians should commemorate Christ’s death. Remembering Him by partaking with the bread and wine is a way to eternal life, and Christ taught us the right way how to partake with it. Unless we adopt the right way, we cannot obtain that glorious promise.

Catholics claim that Christ is in the bread of the Eucharist and that “through the food of the Eucharist, Christ’s eternal life penetrates and flows within human life” and that it is the antidote to death, as John Paul II stated in his encyclical. But the question is, does eternal life connives with acts of idolatry? This is what’s happening today in the Catholic Church. The entire Church recognized the consecrated bread as the real Christ and bow down before it. Said the Cathecism;

Para 1378 Worship of the Eucharist. 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.

There’s no any biblical record showing that the bread of the Lord’s Supper was laid in a sacred vessel and worshiped, neither apostles consecrated an ordinary bread to be worshiped. And why did the Curia excluded the wine in the service of their Eucharist? They stated that it is not necessary to partake of both species of the Eucharist because the consecrated bread and wine are both the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, and so one is sufficient. The same way they did to the order of the Ten Commandments, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority. So, by the light of the Scriptures, the bread of the Eucharist is rather an object of a mortal sin than a mean of eternal life. The Bread of the eternal life is not in the form of a piece of unleavened bread bought from a baker’s store that when a man eats will “go into the belly and is cast out into the draught”. (Matthew 15:17) What do you think will happen to Him after digestion? Think. Catholic apologists also insist that the bread of the Eucharist is no more an ordinary bread once consecrated by the priest, but like the water of Cana which Christ completely transformed into wine, will transform into the actual body of the Savior. If it is true, then why did the bread still remain in its appearance unlike the water of Cana?

The Bread of life is a LIVING BREAD,  not a lifeless piece of cake. When a man eats this, it will dwell within him forever, for it is written, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him”. To dwell in Christ and He in us means to let Him live and direct our lives. By accepting His precious sacrifice, His body and His blood, on the cross, our old man also crucified with Him so no more that we are living by ourselves but Christ liveth in us: and the life which we now live in the flesh we live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved us, and gave himself for us; this is how we partake with the Bread of life. But concerning to the Eucharist, Catholics believed that when the host is digested it no longer has the appearance of bread, it is no longer the body of Christ. The Lord is only present as long as the appearance of bread is present. So look upon those millions of people who are very much devouted in receiving the Communion? As how often people celebrates the mystery of the Eucharist, the world is becoming more wicked. When Christ said, “I am the bread of life”, it doesn’t mean that He’s turning His body into a literal bread, neither transforming the bread of the Supper into His actual existence. The real bread that comes down from heaven is Christ Himself in His actual divine and human state. How we can receive Him or partake with His body and blood? Are we going to chew and swallow Him literally? No. The Bread of heaven is free for everyone. By coming to Him and by believing in His words, we are actually receiving Him in spirit according to His command. Christ said, “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” (John 6:36).

The “Pajero Bishops”

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. (Matthews 23:27)

Let them resign!”

She should apologize via all media organization”.


These are what the bishops and high ranking leaders of the Catholic Church in the Philippines shout against the current PCSO Chairperson Margie Juico after dragging the names of some Catholic bishops into the irregular use of PCSO funds during the past administration.  PCSO (or Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office) is one of the major branches of the government that deals with the “raising and providing for funds for health programs, medical assistance and services, and charities of national character”, as what the Republic Act 1169 dictated. Being a government agency, PCSO is included in the declaration of Article VI Section 28 of the 1987 Constitution which says, “No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium”.  This provision of the “separation of the Church and state” principle was clearly violated during the administration of ex-President Gloria Arroyo when the agency’s funds were used to provide the luxurious requests of some Church bishops in the country.

By saying that vehicles are needed for charitable works like relief missions and similar activities in their respective dioceses,

Bishop Pueblo's letter to ex-Pres. Arroyo

some bishops,  according to the 2009 report of the Commission on Audit,  received great amounts that totaled to P7 million; amounts that were used to buy luxurious vehicles such as Bishop Pueblo’s 4×4 Montero Sports, Bishop Quevedo’s Mitsubishi Pajero, etc..  This amount was released when the former President entertained the request of some bishops like that of Butuan Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblo. But perhaps, due to the shameful consequences of Juico’s exposition, bishops decided to return the vehicles to the government, but they now calling for the resignation of the current PCSO Chairperson, a call that the government ignored.

Bishops are now appearing before the scene as a flock of lamb. Displaying their innocence and pitiful appearance hoping to get more sympathy from millions of Catholics all over the country. They say that they were used as sacrifice in order to conceal the

Other bishops who received their gifts.

bigger anomaly of the agency (which actually they are just part of it). Bishops are now the good ones while Juico appears to be a liar by telling that they asked for Pajero instead of saying that it’s actually a 4×4 Montero. But why Montero? Why Strada or Crosswind? Are the poor need to be visited with Pajero?… I mean a 4×4 Montero?

Who Is the Liar?

 “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist,”

I John 2:22

"On August 19, 2005 – at exactly 12:00 noon on a Friday, the same day and hour that Jesus was crucified – Benedict XVI arrived at the Jewish Synagogue and then took active part in a Jewish worship service. Along with John Paul II’s 1986 visit to the Synagogue, this was certainly one of the most scandalous events in human history – the alleged leader of the Christian Church, after the promulgation of the Gospel, traveling to the Jewish Synagogue (the Temple of those who reject the Messiah), taking part in their worship ceremony, and thus attempting to validate the Jewish religion."

When Cardinal Arturo Medina Estevez, the Cardinal-priest of San Saba, began to announce the election of the new pope with the famous Habemus Papam, a great sound of joy from the throng that flocked before the St. John Lateran suddenly burst upon the air. The joy that buried for a short but painful period of loss of the one whom the world regarded as the “man of the century” was finally broken as the Vatican revealed the name of their new head bishop. Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, the subject of this Catholic rejoice, was named Benedict XVI as he assumed the papacy as the 265th pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

Joseph Ratzinger, as Cardinal, was the most influential Catholic churchman before and after the death of John Paul II. On November 1981 he was named as the Head or the Cardinal-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Office of the Holy Inquisition, the authority that decides all Catholic teachings. Being the head of this congregation, Ratzinger is the most important voice for interpreting the doctrines of his Church and he make sure that they were upheld – fitted enough to be called as “the right hand of the pope”. During this year, Ratzinger authored number of books that displayed the kind of theology that brought this man into the position of honor above the rest of his fellow cardinals. Some of his books contained his views regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, and perhaps, if Catholic faithfuls will have the opportunity to read these writings along with deep understanding to what are contained here, they will notice something is happening wrong.

In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The Jewish People And Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. This was authored by the one who presently rules the Vatican. According to this book,

According to this Vatican book which was authored by the presently called Benedict XVI, Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one! What a statement from the one who professed to be the Lord’s representative! This is anti-christ. A same denial of Christ was also written in a book “God And the World, also authored by Ratzinger. In page 209 says;

God and the World p.209

The quotation above is perfectly against the teachings of Christ Himself which says; “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39) And in verse 45 and 46 it says; “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. ” But Benedict XVI stated that all these words might be wrong. And again in the same book, God and the World, he continues…

God and the World page 151

This is a total rejection of the biblical teaching that Christ is the only way to salvation both for the Jews and Gentiles.

Uttering blasphemous things is already a trademark of the papacy. This was not only foretold by the Biblical prophecies  but historically, speaking of blasphemy conjoining with the display of pomp and influence made the papal institution to survive for more than a thousand and a half years. If people will only be taught to submit themselves into the authority of the gospel that was written in the Holy Scriptures, millions of Catholics around the world will clearly see that what the world glorifies is an abomination unto the Lord.

Benedict XVI is the 256th in the line of the history’s renowned blasphemous religious leaders. And as the Bible declared that the world loved darkness rather than light, he was welcomed by a tumultuous shouts of joy and heart-warming applause from the Catholic throng and once more, Jesus Christ was profaned in the midst of the humanity that He wants to be saved.

Theotokos; A False Claim For Mary

The belief that Mary was the Mother of God by means of bearing in her womb the Savior’s body was already a universal belief. I say


universal since not only the Catholics, but even the Protestants uphold this Marian doctrine. Protestants, in clinging to the explanation that since Jesus is God and Mary conceived Him, therefore Mary should be regarded as the Mother of God. From this simple explanation, all the doctrines relating to the veneration of Mary arise among the Christendom, so its not surprising if Protestant denominations will soon venerate Mary in the way the Catholic does.

For a great period of time, the claim about the motherhood of Mary to God was defended by the Catholic Church, though in reality, the Bible never mentioned anything about this subject. The belief about Theotokos lies upon the weak understanding of Christ’s dual nature. The dual nature of Christ – the divine and human – are well explained by the Holy Scriptures, yet it is a very sensitive subject that a little wrong understanding may contribute to the rise of a false doctrine.

In his letter, Apostle John stated;

“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” (II John 1:7)

The anti-Christ will tell us that Christ didn’t come in the flesh, but what if a preacher will tell us that Christ is the VERY FLESH which was conceived by Mary? Well, that’s unbiblical and unchristian, too.  The Spirit of Christ, which is the begotten Son of God, is different from the flesh which Mary conceived. It was understood that the flesh which was conceived by Mary during her virginity is the body of Christ, the vessel which the Spirit of Christ used in order to fulfill the work of salvation planned by the Father. Except Christ will partake with the nature of man, He will never fulfill the work of redemption through death. The Holy Scripture stated;

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2:14)

And again the Spirit of Christ Himself declared;

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: (Heb. 10:5)

Apostle Paul gave us a clear view about the meaning of the “flesh” when he said;

For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. (II Corinthians 5:4)

Our body is a tabernacle, the dwelling place of a righteous spirit; the same as the body of Christ where the Spirit of the Son dwelt in. By means of the body of flesh and blood, the Son suffered the consequences of sin, experienced the emotional and the physical weaknesses of man, and fulfilled the sacrificial offering at the cross. After the sacrificial offering at the Calvary, the body of Christ was changed into a glorified body; a body that can survive in eternity. Paul said;

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (I Corinthians 15:50)

The body of Christ before the crucifixion was changed. And concerning to this transformation, the apostle said, “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.” (II Corinthians 5:16). The present heavenly body of Christ is not the same as before the crucifixion. It is not the same as what Mary conceived. The role of Mary was already passed and we cannot still say that she is  the Mother of Christ, neither the Mother of God.

Marwil Llasos, an apologist and a blogger defending the Catholic faith clarified that;

Source: Mary: The Mother of God by Marwil N. Llasos

The flesh was already sacrificed and Christ reinstated to His original nature – the nature which Mary never conceived but begotten by God in eternity.

Meditating or Humiliated?

Article by Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.


Benedict prayed facing Mecca at his visit to the Blue Mosque

“Like so many Catholics regrettably accustomed to ecumenical gestures, my friend Jan made light of Benedict XVI’s prayer at the Blue Mosque on November 30, 2006 in Turkey. “He wasn’t really praying with the Muslims,” she affirmed. “He was just meditating. There’s nothing wrong with that.”

This is also the spin the Catholic media are putting on the symbolic act of Pope Ratzinger. Even before the visit was over, papal spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi was pointing out to journalists that the Pope had not actually prayed, but was “in meditation.”

Who can judge the intentions of the Pontiff when he turned east and joined in prayer with the Istanbul mufti? This question of private intentions, in my opinion, is fundamentally wrong. We are not dealing with private intentions, everything about that visit was open, symbolic and quite clear in its main goal: Benedict intended to humiliate himself – and with him the Papacy – before the Muslim religion. This intention is quite unambiguous.

First, he went to the mosque.

Second, before entering it, he removed his shoes.

Third, he humbly received “instruction” from Mustafa Cagriche on the basics of Muslim prayer.

Fourth, he meekly followed the Muslim’s command to turn toward “the Kiblah” – the direction of Mecca. Then the prayer began.

Fifth, he did not even make the Sign of the Cross or give any external sign that he was making a Catholic prayer. On the contrary, he

he entered the mosque without shoes, as required by Islamic precepts.

imitated the mufti, crossing his hands on his stomach in a classical Muslim prayer attitude known as “the posture of tranquility.” Eyes closed, they prayed together for several minutes.

Therefore, every external sign of a tacit apostasy from Catholic prayer was present, not any sublime personal attitude. This was the indisputable message Benedict XVI wanted to send to Muslims and Catholics.

This was also how the world viewed it. The media heralded the “prayer of the Pope” in the mosque as an “unexampled gesture.” “Pope and Muslim cleric pray in historic mosque,” announced the London Guardian. “The Prayer in the mosque is the symbol of the Pope’s visit,” read El Mundo in Madrid. “The Pope turned toward Mecca and prayed like Muslims,” reported The New York Times.

So, Benedict XVI became the second Pope in history (after John Paul II in Damascus in 2001) to set foot in a Muslim temple, and the first to pray publicly with a Muslim mufti.

“And what is wrong with that?” Jan and several other readers have asked. “What if the Holy Father was praying for the light of Christ to enlighten and convert Muslims?”

Once again, the matter in question is not the intention of the Pontiff’s prayer. It is the act itself, that symbolic act noted easily by the media, but glossed over by so many conciliar Catholics.

Summarizing centuries of Church legislation, the Code of Canon Law of 1917 clearly stated: “It is not licit for the faithful to actively assist at or participate in ceremonies of non-Catholics” (canon 1258).

Before Vatican II, for a Catholic layman – much less the Supreme Pontiff, to pray openly with pagans in a Muslim temple was simply unthinkable. Participating in heretical, schismatic or pagan worship was constantly and uniformly forbidden.

Many Catholics will still remember some of the strict instructions enforced by the Holy Office. Its 1907 Decretas specified that Catholics could not pray or sing with heretics, schismatics or pagans. We were instructed, under pain of sin, to never participate in the liturgical acts of those who reject the one true Catholic Church.

Special permission had to be sought to attend weddings and funerals of non-Catholics. In such cases, a Catholic could only be passively present, and by no means participate in rites or ceremonies of false sects.

To even enter a temple of false religion was a very serious matter. It was sinful if one had the intention to actually assist at a sacred function of pagans, or even if one appeared to be participating in the worship with pagans, thereby giving scandal. Also, a Catholic could not be a godparent of a schismatic or heretic.

In short, it is “constantly and uniformly forbidden” for Catholics to participate in schismatic and heretic worship.

The Church has quite sound reasons for maintaining strong proscriptions against participating in the services of false religions or

Another historic scandal: the visit of John Paul II to a Damascus mosque, 2001 - PDV, August 16-22, 2000

entering their temples. She has the duty to protect the faithful from religious indifferentism, an error that holds that eternal salvation can be found in all religions.

Pope Gregory XVI wrote clear, strong words on this topic:

    “We reach now another cause for the evils that unhappily afflict the Church at this time. That is, we arrive at this ‘Indifferentism,’ or this perverse opinion that has spread everywhere as the work of evil ones, according to which it would be possible to achieve eternal salvation by means of any profession of faith, so long as the practices be upright and honest. It will not be difficult, in such a clear and evident matter, to reject from the bosom of the Catholics who are confided to your care this fatal error.

    “Given that the Apostle warns us that there is only ‘one Lord, one Faith, one baptism’ (Eph 4:5), these Catholics should fear those who imagine that every religion offers the means to arrive at eternal happiness and should understand that, according to the testimony of the Savior Himself, ‘he that is not with me, is against me’ (Lk 11:23), and that they unhappily scatter since they do not gather with Him. Consequently, ‘it is not to be doubted that they will perish eternally if they do not profess the Catholic Faith and if they do not guard it entire and inviolate.’ (Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari vos, August 15, 1832, Recueil des allocutions, p. 163, in Atila S. Guimarães, Animus Delendi II, Los Angeles:TIA, 2002.)

It is almost impossible not to see that Benedict XVI incurred the condemnation above when he visited the Blue Mosque in Istanbul.

Therefore, dear Jan, putting aside the question of private intentions, what we can see is that the Pope blatantly gave a great scandal to Catholics by his action. He implied that Muslims can be saved when they are good Muslims. Now then, this is precisely the error condemned by Pope Gregory XVI above.

The Danger of Ecumenism

By Marian T. Horvat

Jan asked me about the ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. Let me present a concrete example that happened recently to illustrate how such dialogue produces bad fruits.

The 5,000 seats at Loyola University stadium were sold out, and 1,000 others turned away for the August 22 event opening the school year at Chicago’s Jesuit University. What speaker stimulated such enthusiasm? What spiritual exercise could generate the kind of public interest generally reserved for sports events?

The speaker was Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, who was invited by Loyola University to “instruct” Catholics on

Above, Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh packed the stadium at Loyola University to initiate students in Buddhist exercises. National Catholic Reporter, September 12, 2003

practices of Eastern pagan spirituality. Earlier that day, the Buddhist bonze gave a talk to the incoming class of 1200 Loyola freshmen and their parents at the annual freshman convocation. He encouraged his rapt audiences to the daily practice of meditation and breathing exercises as a means to eliminate all passionate emotions and thus achieve peace and compassion. He received standing ovations at both events (“Practicing Peace,” National Catholic Reporter, September 12, 2003).

A Catholic can only wonder at the irony of the situation. St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, sent his missionaries around the

world risking their lives to teach the Catholic Faith to pagans like the Buddhists and Hindus. Today Jesuits at a prestigious U.S. college invite a pagan monk to preach to Catholic students and parents and induce them to the practices of a gnostic pagan sect, since Vatican II benignly called “a non-Christian religion.”

Now, what would be included among those passions the monk preached against as counter-productive to peace? No doubt, the burning zeal to convert souls to the Catholic Faith that distinguished the Jesuit missionaries of times past. Everything is relative, according to the gnostic teacher. Conversion should not exist, since no one knows what is right or wrong. We should not try to change anyone’s convictions, but rather engage in “compassionate listening” to the ideas of others. This, and only this, would eliminate anger and fear and bring individual peace as well as world peace. War and harm would occur because of the conviction that one knows the truth and those who do not share his beliefs are wrong. Tolerance, the Buddhist monk assured his spellbound audience, would be the only way to bring about peace.

These are some theses from the monk’s new book, Creating True Peace, that Catholics filled Loyola stadium to hear Thich Nhat Hanh

explain and teach. The students will be provided opportunity to delve deeper into the topic because they will be reading two of his works this year in Loyola’s required Great Books course.

What on earth is a Buddhist doing preaching to Catholics students at a Jesuit University? Why are students being indoctrinated at a Catholic university with the theories of a pagan sect? Buddhism rejects the dogmas of a transcendent God and Our Lord Jesus Christ as Redeemer, original sin, free will, good works, the power of prayer, the Last Judgment, Heaven and Hell. All these doctrines are disregarded as irrelevant and meaningless.

Actualite des Religions, February 2001

What matters to Buddhists is experience, not doctrine, thus their emphasis on self-negating meditation and asceticism. Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and seek to escape the cycles of rebirth by extinguishing all forms of desire, including attachment to conscious existence. By means of exercises like the one the Buddhist monk was teaching, they strive to attain the supposedly blissful state of nirvana, essentially, the absence of any desire.”

It is obvious any doctrinal agreement is impossible. So where is the meeting ground for Buddhism and the progressivst Conciliar Church?

* The Buddhist emphasis on individual experience finds common ground with the Catholic Charismatic movement.

* Its religious egalitarianism – viewing all beings, human and non-human, as essentially equal in their nothingness – finds resonance in many modern philosophies that Progressivism is adapting to.

* Its radical position against any violence and all war suits the pacifist Catholic wing to a tee.

* Its preaching of tolerance for every creed, sect and moral aberration is also championed by ecumenist advocates.

So, forget any doctrine, which would be a secondary matter. That, in effect, is the message the Jesuits at Loyola are sending to their Catholic students. We could work and “pray” together with the Buddhists to achieve a more profound personal spiritual growth, as well as social goals such as world peace. By sharing experiences and keeping an open mind to other “truths,” Catholics could receive what is “good” and “holy” in the false religions.

Religious relativism of Vatican II: A Catholic priest prays in a Buddhist monastery in New York Maryknoll, January 1999

But doing this, the lines of truth and error, good and evil, holy and blasphemous become blurred, especially for young persons already acclimated to the relativist attitudes of the modern day world. As Atila Guimarães points out in Animus Delendi II, for Catholic authorities to permit pantheist pagans to teach Catholics their false methods of spirituality is unacceptable on three counts:

    • From the dogmatic standpoint, it denies that the Catholic Church is the exclusive guardian of the treasures of Revelation.

    • It strikes at Catholic militancy, which is based on the notion of opposition between truth and error, good and evil.

    • It denies the missionary character of the Church. Why the urgency to risk one’s life to bring the truth of Christ to one who already has a satisfactory, route to salvation?

If the Jesuits at Loyola University are seeking a means to stimulate a greater Catholic spirituality among youth, they would not need to look any further than the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, which has a rich history of working great conversions of individuals.

If they want to encourage students to daily meditation, they do not need to turn to Eastern breathing exercises and the recitation of mantras. Our Lady gave us the Holy Rosary, and at Fatima asked us to pray it daily as a means to save our own souls, convert sinners and achieve world peace. It is absurd to imagine that the Catholic Church has need of Buddhist practices and teachings to achieve these aims.

A Heaven Insulting Heresy

The Baltimore Catechism

Have you ever imagined how our Lord Jesus Christ endured the horrific ordeal during the crucifixion? How He suffered mockery and painful abandonment of those people He loved, fed, healed and taught with good words of life?

How hard He shouldered the sins of the world where He Himself committed no sins but lived in purity and obedience to His Father until the last hour of His earthly life? The hour when the clouds of heaven concealed the face of God away from Him hence He shouted with intense agony saying, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” All because of His desire to save humanity from the horrible punishment of transgressing the law of God. But as for the Catholic Church, this is not enough. For the Catholic Church, the Death on the Calvary is not enough to satisfy the justice of God for the sins committed against Him. The Baltimore Catechism states,

Catholic doctrine called it “unbloody manner” or an opposite type of the what had been done on the Calvary. They teach that each time the bread of the Eucharist is offered, the Sacrifice of our dear Lord is repeated. Their teachings claim that the host, once consecrated by the priest, transforms into the actual body of Christ, making the little bread as the real “Son of God” to be sacrificed again in a very different form far from what has been said in the Holy Scripture.



The celebration of the mass is a very solemn event during the Catholic convocation, but no matter how solemn or devout the people shows in reverence of the consecrated bread, when the gospel is concerned, the celebration is totally nonsense and heaven insulting. The Holy Bible states,

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.” (Hebrews 9:28)

“When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.” (John 19:30)

Christ uttered, “IT IS FINISHED”, a clear statement indicating that sacrifice for our salvation is completely finished; the one and only sacrifice that satisfies the justice of God for the sins committed against Him so that no other sacrifice shall be made as completion or continuation or repetition of that great act of our salvation. Thus, the Catholic Church, not only by the claim of their clergy to make a Christ out of a little bread, but by performing another sacrifice aside from the sacrifice of Christ, is actually committing a heaven-insulting heresy. The host of the mass has nothing to do with our salvation neither it has any relation with the body of Christ but a single piece that intentionally formulated to counteract the genuine salvation taught in the gospel.

People should open their Bible. Read for themselves what really happened during the Cross and how peculiar and important the sacrifice Christ performed there. This is the only hope of man, and not those ceremonial celebrations of the clergy “that could not make him that did the service perfect. “