What christ is emerging from the ecumenical movement?

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
The picture above is of the monstrance that carries the consecrated host which according to Catholic tradition has become the literal body of Christ (See quote below). This monstrance is ushered around for people to venerate and worship the christ in the euchurist. The monstrance is a vessel to exhibit the blessed sacrament, it is sometimes set upon an alter for further veneration and when finished with, it is put into a tabernacle which is kept under lock and key. This is a very brief outline to a tradition that has seperated catholics from protestants but we are seeing a New church which believes in unity despite the truth and is pushing towards an ecumenical church which, undoubtedly will become an interfaith body. One body that is truly organic and evolving in nature. But, does the above practice fit in with scripture:

Mat 24:25 Behold, I tell you beforehand. Mat 24:26 Then if they say to you, Behold, He is in the wilderness; do not go out. Behold, He is in the inner rooms; do not believe. Mat 24:27 For as the lightning comes forth from the east and shines as far as the west, so also will be the coming of the Son of Man.

It is important to note that ‘inner rooms’ translates to: (a dispenser or distributor; akin to τέμνω temnō, to cut); a dispensary or magazine, that is, a chamber on the ground floor or interior of an Oriental house (generally used for storage or privacy, a spot for retirement): – secret chamber, closet, storehouse.

With that in mind read about what happens to the wafer according to Roman Catholic tradition. The quote below is taken from the Council of Trent, and Vatican 2 has not changed this tradition but has upheld it as being a paramount sacrament for believers to obtain salvation.

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.” […] The tabernacle was first intended for the reservation of the Eucharist in a worthy place so that it could be brought to the sick and those absent, outside of Mass. As faith in the real presence of Christ in his Eucharist deepened, the Church became conscious of the meaning of silent adoration of the Lord present under the Eucharistic species. It is for this reason that the tabernacle should be located in an especially worthy place in the church and should be constructed in such a way that it emphasizes and manifests the truth of the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. […] In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us, and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love: The Church and the world have a great need for Eucharistic worship. Jesus awaits us in this sacrament of love. Let us not refuse the time to go to meet him in adoration, in contemplation full of faith, and open to making amends for the serious offenses and crimes of the world. Let our adoration never cease. The Council of Trent – 1376-1380

Ok, here is my question. How can the emergents – the people of this New Christianity – justify having any kind of communion with this ungodly practice? People have not understood the true nature of the church of Rome. I have read across the blogoshpere concerning the emerging church and how excited they are with ancient practices which perhaps in ignorance they indulge in. These practices are un-biblical and are practices in which the pagan church of Rome have been steeped in for centuries. I wonder if we will soon start to hear about the eucharist’s mystery beginning to show itself within this emerging New Christianity?

Do the emergents understand that the catholic jesus is in no way the Jesus of the Bible and catholics actually worship another jesus. If they are willing to do a little research into the history of the catholic church will they see that this is actually an apostate church. I don’t think they do understand the history at all. If they are so willing to participate in ecumenical dialogue with this apostate church and have fellowship with them; rather than giving them the good news about the Grace of God through His Son, other than the catholic understanding that salvation is only obtained only by the blessed sacraments, then they are truly becoming unequally yoked. TallSkinnyKiwi has this to say about his recent experience with some charasmatic Catholics.

Despite being warmly received by the charasmatic Catholics, Reinhold is still a Protestant. And our Catholic friends are still Catholic. No one is trying to proselytize anyone else. We are all learning how to follow Jesus together. Its possible that i will lose a few friends over this “eccumenical” move, including some dear fundamentalist teachers from my Bible College days who will be horrified to hear this. You might be horrified also and you are welcome to leave some harsh comments below, if that will help you process it. Or . . . like me . . you may be happy to hear that some of us are responding to Jesus prayer that we might be one, so that the world will hear. I want the world to hear . . . so I need to be part of the solution that sees Christ body starting living together now, in preparation for the life to come.

Well, the majority of comments were positive towards this ecumenical dialogue, some not so. Ken Silva from ‘Apprising Ministries’ held his ground when he had this to say:

To use the Emergent buzzword, if you look carefully at the “story” of God’s dealing with man you will see that He has always worked through a remnant as the rest fall into apostasy. The point being, the Lord is not calling us to put away our “doctrinal differences,” but as in 1 Corinthians 11:19 – “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval,” the Great Shepherd is actually calling to His true children to “come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” (2 Corinthians 6:17)

Where will you stand? Will you stand against an apostacy as Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries has? Or will you continue to be unequally yoked even though the bible says that we must come out of any teaching that is unclean?

2Co 6:14-17 Become not yoked with others–unbelievers, for what partaking is there to righteousness and lawlessness? and what fellowship to light with darkness? and what concord to Christ with Belial? or what part to a believer with an unbeliever? and what agreement to the sanctuary of God with idols? for ye are a sanctuary of the living God, according as God said–`I will dwell in them, and will walk among them , and I will be their God, and they shall be My people, wherefore, come ye forth out of the midst of them, and be separated, saith the Lord, and an unclean thing do not touch, and I–I will receive you,

11 thoughts on “What christ is emerging from the ecumenical movement?

  1. Where, exactly, does the Bible teach that the consecrated elements of communion should not be set aside in a special place? The Torah was (and continues to be ) set aside by the Jews as a special medium for encountering God’s presence. The Bible, in most protestant churches, rests upon a lectern. If your only complaint is that Catholics reserve the host in a “tabernacle,” it seems rather legalistic. Furthermore, you totally misunderstand the context of the passage you quote in support of your opinion. Jesus said not to look for him in an “inner room” because his SECOND COMING would be visible to all. He wasn’t talking about the practice of reserving the bread of communion. He was warning people against false messiahs whose “glory” would only be visible to a chosen few. When he comes again, all people will see him. This is the point the passage, and you would do well to refrain from misusing the Bible and the words of our Lord to complain about a devotional practice of people who honestly want to adore Jesus. God looks upon the intentions of the heart. Legalists criticize the “unbiblical” rituals of other Christians. Remember the words of Paul:

    Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand. Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God. We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister?


  2. My complaint is not only that the ‘Host’ is set inside a tabernacle. My complaint is the belief that the ‘Host’ is the real presence of Christ!! If this ‘Host’ is the real presence of Christ then logically speaking the Eucharist which is set aside in the monstrance for adoration is the porousia… I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion. Even your new Pope has understood that the Eucharist is the parousia when he wrote in his book ‘ “Eschatology” :

    The cosmic imagery of the New Testament cannot be used as a source for the description of a future chain of cosmic events. All attempts of this kind are misplaced. Instead, these texts form part of a description of the mystery of the Parousia in the language of liturgical tradition. . . . The Parousia is the highest intensification and fulfilment of the Liturgy. And the Liturgy is Parousia, a Parousia-like event taking place in our midst. This helps us to realize that whereas in the Liturgy the Church appears to be engaged in self-contemplation, in reality she enters into the heart of the world, and works actively for the latter’s liberating transformation. . . . Every Eucharist is Parousia, the Lord’s coming, and yet the Eucharist is even more truly the tensed yearning that he would reveal his hidden Glory. Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life (Catholic Univ. of America Press, 1988 [1977]), pp. 202-203 (emphasis added)

    Seen in this perspective, the theme of the Parousia ceases to be speculation about the unknown. It becomes an interpretation of the Liturgy and the Christian life in their intimate connection as in their continual going beyond themselves. The motif of the Parousia becomes the obligation to live the Liturgy as a feast of hope-filled presence directed towards Christ, the universal ruler. . . . In the Liturgy the Church should, as it were, in following him, prepare for him a dwelling in the world. The theme of watchfulness thus penetrates to the point where it takes on the character of a mission: to let the Liturgy be real, until that time when the Lord himself gives to it that final reality which meanwhile can be sought only in image. Ratzinger, p. 204.

    I don’t believe that a priest can change the wafer into the substance of Christ, I don’t believe transubstantiation is in any way biblical. And because of my failure to believe in the sacramental eucharistic christ then I cannot be a part of a Catholic Universal Church and so according to your own churches traditions I am not saved because I do not partake in the sacraments that can be only offered within a Catholic context as your catechisms dictate. Does that make me your sister in christ? Or does my refusal to partake in any sacraments offered by the church of Rome separate me from the church of Rome? If it separates me, which I believe it does, then does that make me your sister in christ?



  3. This whole substantiation business is a far cry from the actual Passover that Jesus and His disciples celebrated. Weren’t they celebrating a feast of the Lord as instructed back in Leviticus 23:4-14(in the Torah) that has NOTHING to do with this monstrance or any man made golden decorative post 300 AD addition?
    Just my thoughts of the day…


  4. I think I will just point out what scripture says about the communion:

    1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?
    1Co 10:17 seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we are all partake of the one bread.
    1Co 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they that eat the sacrifices communion with the altar?
    1Co 10:19 What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
    1Co 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with demons.
    1Co 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.

    Catholics are commiting a terrible sin every time they come to the table and partake of flesh and blood… sounds like cannabalism to me!!!



  5. Just a quick note to thank you for the kind words in the Lord. As a former Roman Catholic whom God mercifully delivered from this apostate form of Christianity I do know whereof I speak.

    I commend you for your willingness to point out this most important and eternal issue, as my teacher Dr. Walter Martin often said: “If you have the wrong Jesus you are wrong for all eternity.” The Lord be with you.


  6. No worries mate!

    Seriously though, my heart is sadenned by the current wave of ecumenicalism.

    There is a point where they will become willfully sinful and for that there is no more sacrifice:

    Heb 10:26 For if we are willfully sinning after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice concerning sins,

    Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
    Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

    Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

    The above verse does in no way mean in the mystical way of adoration of the host inside a golden monstrance.

    I say Marantha!!!


  7. “My complaint is the belief that the ‘Host’ is the real presence of Christ!!”

    Your complaint is with Christ then. It is Christ who said ‘unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man you shall have no life in you'[John6]. He also says in the three synoptic gospels in the last supper of the bread ‘this is my body’, and He says of the cup, ‘this is my blood’. In Luke 24 the disciples knew Christ ‘in the breaking of the bread’. In 1Cor11 Paul is emphatic that those who recieve the Eucharist unworthily eat and drink unto their own judgement. In 1Cor10;16 it is also clear that the challice of benediction is the blood of Christ. Revelation is all about the Liturgy.

    “Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly…..he has appeared once for all ………….Christ, having been offered once ”

    Yes, the sacrifice of Christ is a one time thing. However through the Eucharist we recieve participation in that one sacrifice of Christ. The sacrifice which happened on Calvary hill is the very same sacrifice which occurs on the altar in every Catholic Church. You can read any Catholic apologetics and get this idea. It is all through every saints writings.

    “Catholics are commiting a terrible sin every time they come to the table and partake of flesh and blood… sounds like cannabalism to me!!!”

    What is the sin? That we accept the teaching that Christ gave? Namely that He is present to us in the Eucharist. Cannabalism? do some more reading about the Eucharist. You will see that it is not cannabalism. I don’t want to say too much on this one because I could easily mess it up. But I will say this. The Eucharist is not the same form of Christ in which He was in His earthly ministry in 30AD. It is a mystical presence of His body, blood, soul and divinity. I don’t want you to think that I am somehow diminishing His presence in the Eucharist. He is present in a more true way than you are present. He is truely and substantially present in the Eucharist but we are not picking up a leg muscle or something and gnawing on it.

    “become the literal body of Christ ”

    Actually the word ‘literal’ is never used to describe the Eucharist. What is said is that Christ is ‘truely and substantially present’ in the Eucharist. In other words the Eucharist is Christ in His essence. It is Christ. He is present under the appearances of bread and wine.

    “christ in the euchurist”

    The Eucharist is Christ, it doesn’t simply contain Christ. Every bit of the Eucharist is Christ, and it is the whole Christ.

    “I don’t believe that a priest can change the wafer into the substance of Christ, I don’t believe transubstantiation is in any way biblical. And because of my failure to believe in the sacramental eucharistic christ then I cannot be a part of a Catholic Universal Church and so according to your own churches traditions I am not saved because I do not partake in the sacraments that can be only offered within a Catholic context as your catechisms dictate”

    You are the one refusing to hear Christs words. Look at the references above in my first paragraph. Christ was very emphatic that you must eat His body and drink His blood. Even when His disciples left Him, never to follow Him again, He continued to push the issue. He pushed it on His disciples.

    Regarding the parousia. Yes, it is in relation to the second coming. Through it we recieve resurrection. However, as Pope Benedict said in his book which you quote, it does not cancel the fact that there will be a second coming as a future event. Christ will certainly come in the end of the world in a way that all can see and recognize Him. The Eucharist is in relation to both that second coming in which we recieve our ressurection, and it is in relation to the first coming in which we recieved forgiveness of sins and grace.


  8. “Just a quick note to thank you for the kind words in the Lord. As a former Roman Catholic whom God mercifully delivered from this apostate form of Christianity I do know whereof I speak.

    I commend you for your willingness to point out this most important and eternal issue, as my teacher Dr. Walter Martin often said: “If you have the wrong Jesus you are wrong for all eternity.” The Lord be with you.”

    I will pray that Christ saves you from your error.


  9. A Roman Miracle

    A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed;
    To love all Bible truths and tales, quite early she’s been bred.
    It sorely grieved her husband’s heart that she would not comply,
    And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny.

    So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good
    Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood.
    The Mass, the host, the miracles, were made but to deceive;
    And transubstantiation, too, she’d never dare believe.

    He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale.
    “My wife is an unbeliever, sir; you can perhaps prevail.
    For all your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion,
    To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion.”

    The priest went with the gentleman–he thought to gain a prize.
    He said, ” I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes.”
    So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried,
    “This priest has come to dine with us!” “He’s welcome,” she replied.

    And when, at last, the meal was o’er, the priest at once began
    To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man;
    The greatness of our Savior’s love, which Christians can’t deny,
    To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.

    “I will return tomorrow, las, prepare some bread and wine;
    The sacramental miracle will stop your soul’s decline.”
    “I’ll bake the breaed,” the lady said, “You may,” he did reply,
    “And when you’ve seen this maracle, convinced you’ll be, say I.”

    The priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless,
    The lady asked, “Sir, is it changed?” The priest answered, “Yes.
    It’s changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood;
    Begorra, lass, this power of mine has changed it into God!

    So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare.
    The lady said unto the priest, “I want you to take care,
    For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter,
    But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter.”

    The priest was struck real dumb–he looked as pale as death.
    The bread and wine fell from his hands and he did gasp for breath.
    “Bring me my horse!” the priest cried, “This is a cursed home!”
    The lady replied, “Begone; tis you who shares the curse of Rome.”

    The husband, too, he sat surprised, and not a word did say.
    At length he spoke, “My dear,” said he, “the priest has run away;
    To gulp such mummery and tripe, I’m not for sure, quite able;
    I’ll go with you and we’ll renounce this Roman Catholic fable.”

    –author unknown–


Comments are closed.