Bible Prophecy, The New Testament And The Oldest Church Records Reveal The Catholic Eucharist Will Eventually Convert All Protestants To Catholicism

Tony-Palmer-Eucharist-ArticleBy Walid Shoebat

Never before did I understand certain biblical prophecies regarding Communion until I left Protestantism and participated in the Catholic Communion. It is only then did I begin to see how God prophesied on the risen Christ in the Eucharist. Something happens when we confess our sins to a priest and get absolution and then by faith believe that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It is only then that I could comprehend scripture which reveals; this is not all ‘just symbolic’ as we were told by Evangelical pastors. As I began to re-read scripture I began to see how amazing our God is, even more amazing than I had ever understood in the past.

How all this unfolds from the Bread of Life to our Daily Bread demands the patience of Job and the study of someone who desires to run marathons. But before I explain the Eucharist, I would like to start with what is trying to end our Daily Bread: locusts.

In Joel 2:25 God speaks of the invasions of locusts. While we have always applied this in regards of Israel’s desolation for rejecting the Messiah, and her restoration, then redemption, while this is true, many miss what applies also from the other sense for the Church.

Prophecy has a dual function, always, an earthly and heavenly. Joel predicts the day of the Lord as: “Blow the trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm in My holy mountain!” (Joel 2:15)

While most are consumed with the earthly Mount Zion, they forget; the Heavenly Mount Zion where the saints reside “in My Holy Mountain” and not “on My Holy Mountain”, with the saints, the angels and with Christ, and from their the angels will sound the Trumpet of God: “Blow the trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm in My holy mountain!” (Joel 2:2).

This is the place which in Hebrews speaks of heavenly Mount Zion which is the goal of the Christian to come to God through his continual access and a lifetime supplication to connect to the Heavenly Mount Zion:

“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angelsto the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfectto Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:22-24)

This is the whole goal and process of salvation, that is, to transform us striving to become “the righteous” who are “made perfect”. This is the communion between the Church Militant on earth and the Church Triumphant in heavenly Mount Zion, where the saints, angels and The Trinity reside.

This is the strive of the Christian.

But when it comes to God’s people, neither God or Christ ever speak of “reform” but “restore”. The sinner is to be restored to the Second Man, Jesus Christ. Even the Church, Joel never speaks of ‘reform’ but ‘restore’:

So I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, The crawling locust, The consuming locust, And the chewing locust, My great army which I sent among you.

It is only when I became Catholic that I can truly fathom the other sense of what Joel prophesied regarding these locusts, and how God will restore what the locusts have done when He revives and cleanses the Catholic Church, which the smoke of the Antichrist has already entered. But explaining all this will not make sense until we understand the Eucharist.

For example, the feast called Pasch or Passover is loaded with amazing prophetic insight which proves beyond doubt the apostolic-succession style Eucharist that insists on eating the literal Body of the Lamb of God.

I need not even look up the word Pasch, its a language I grew up with, Pasch (the “ch” is pronounced “kh”) means the same in Aramaic and Arabic “Faskh“; is a majestic word meaning “to split” or “to divide” in order to pass through to the Kingdom.

So if God “split the mountain” we would say “fasakh-a-l-jabal”. Passover is where God splits the Red sea, splits Hebrews from Egyptians, splits the mountains (nations) dividing them by splitting them, splitting and separating sheep from goats. Christ splits the bread, even splitting into it, infusing into it the divine. He splits time, and is beyond time, where His passion remains current (not re-sacrifice as many accuse); and since God is above and beyond the restrictions of time (Psalm 90:2) such mystery is to be observed (memorial) forever.

You might think: “This is a hard saying; who can we listen to it?”

It will become clearer when you reach the end of my short marathon run. Do not run out of breath.

In fact, the Old Testament passover puts a nail in the coffin making the Eucharist an eternal observance. How else can we explain:

“And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.” (Exodus 12:14)

How could God institute this Old Testament “sacrifice” calling it “memorial” while it must and will be observed “for ever”? Can anyone scientifically define “for ever” or explain an eternal sacrificial system?

While Jews still celebrate passover, they are missing the sacrifice and the slaughtering of the lamb. In Malachi 1, He clearly prophesied the animal sacrificial system will be ‘no more’ and will be replaced and continued by a sacrificial system called “grain offering” that is “pure”. And since Israel does not continue such sacrificial system of killing a lamb, God then was speaking of the “faithful” and not simply Israel. And by this the sacrificial system continues in fulfillment of Exodus 12:14.

If Ezekiel’s Temple was about predicting animal sacrifices that will commence when Christ returns, than God failed for two millennia, God in Exodus 12:14 specifically instructed that such sacrifice will commence henceforth from Moses and then continues “for ever”. God also calls it a “memorial” (to remember) while it had an action: a literal and eternal and continual sacrifice “for ever“.

How is such a passover observed “for ever”?

This can never be unless it is the past and the current continuing Passover meal, the very meal that will continue “for ever” even from when Christ said: “Take and eat; this is my body … This is my blood of the  covenant … from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:29Luke 22:18)

“Eat the Bread” and “drink the cup” “In My Father’s Kingdom”? Was this just simple “bread” and simple “grape juice” to be drank again in heaven (in My Father’s kingdom) for ever?

The Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

What I just etched above is considered “controversial”. But truth in the matters of Christ is only found where controversy abounds while ignorance is behind all controversy.

In a previous article Why The Eucharist Made Me Catholic, many replied and said that my short dissertation made a compelling case how prophecy supported the Catholic position on the Eucharist. But I felt that I failed, since I only scratched the surface, and so I decided to continue running this marathon to scratch ‘another surface’ regarding the Eucharist while I explain the nature of the Catholic-Protestant schism and how to be “as wise as serpents” always asking Jesus-style questions.


I will share what has troubled me for two decades in a series of writ, not meaning to offend my fellow Protestant brethren who contributed much in rearing me on the Bible which I am dearly indebted to many who had made a difference in my life. But they have erred, and in the spirit of love, I desire to correct since in the end, everyone will be converted to this truth; the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Christ;  and when that time comes, prophecy teaches, that there will be no schism, no divides, no multiple denominations, but that the church will be one as it was at its beginning.

Where there is no controversy, there is where you will find the error. Even when one argues; that between Protestant and Catholic there exists no controversy over the Trinity. But fact remains, there is much controversy. Today we have within non-liberal Protestants such a struggle over the Trinity. The Messianic movement, which has attracted multitudes, thinking that they emulate the ‘first believers’ they sprouted the Hebrew Roots Movement where 70-80 percent even deny the Trinity. Many reject Paul and reject the name of Jesus as the name of a pig god. They teach the Talmud and the Kabbalah while rejecting Romans, 1 & 2, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians  1 & 2, Thessalonians; 1 & 2 Timothy; Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. Such rejection of whole sections of Scripture is nothing new. The Puritans are the reason why today all Evangelicals have entire Seven books removed and before them the reformers decided that these were “Apocrypha” just because the Jews who rejected Christ after 70 A.D. decided so. How could such a canon be inspired by the Holy Spirit, especially when Christ used these missing seven books?

Protestantism is notorious for having ‘Trinity denying splits’. Besides the Messianic Hebrew Roots, such splits included Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses who like Islam ended up having disdain for the Trinity.

And while some will argue that these are not true Evangelicals, today, 22% of Evangelicals believe that “God the Father is more divine than Jesus” while a whopping 51%  believe that the Holy Spirit is simply “a force” and not a personal being. These are not small matters in theology since this constitutes utter blasphemy.

Mind you, we are not speaking here of secular liberals like many falling away Methodists and Episcopalians since we can lump all the falling away pro-homosexual and liberal Catholics with the rest of these tares to be set on fire by Christ.

Many ask: but why do you advocate the Church of Rome? Why not Wittenberg, Geneva, or Canterbury, Tulsa or Salt Lake City?

And I answer, why Wittenberg, Geneva, Canterbury, Tulsa or Salt Lake City? Where in Scripture does one find Wittenberg, Geneva, Canterbury, Tulsa or Salt Lake City? “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” (Romans 1)

These verses say it all. The city of saints where faith and correct doctrine came from was Rome, which, as scripture and history confirms, it was from there that it was firmly established, and it was from there that it spread and not from Jerusalem. It is no wonder why the Hebrew Roots want Romans out.

So to know what the true faith is and how it operated in the primitive church where the apostles taught, it is impossible without Rome.

And while many argue about homosexual priests and all sorts of issues about the Pope I ask: should the faithful during Israel have walked away when David murdered Uriah, when Solomon committed sins allowing his vanity, allied to Pharaoh king of Egypt by marriage (Kings 3:1) slept with harem of 1000, and even besides the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites, even turning away his heart after other gods, built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites, even to the point of serving other gods …

While some might create a controversy about what I have written here so far (they always do), saying that “schisms within the Protestant community is expected, they had these as well within the Catholic”. But such schisms only go out of control when there exists no unified ecclesiastical authority from an ancient succession that is authorized to excommunicate and ban schismatics from the universal body. It is what Christ directed; to always take out the leaven and remain one. God instituted order and only the devil is the lord of disorder.

The protestant main argument is that “Catholic theology is poles apart from the heart of the Gospel and the concept of salvation by faith alone that was taught in the Old and New Testament”.

This falsity is propagated and repeated billions of times over. The Bible was constructed in a way that even when it comes to the issue of God Himself, man can create endless controversies and useless debate where the author of confusion is allowed to thrive. This is true even if God included a Magisterium, St. Polycarp, St. Clement and St. Athanasius to become part of the canon of Scripture where clear proof thwarts Protestant arguments, it matters not, man will still create controversy that leads to heresy.

Here we will bring to silence The controversy over Communion. First ask: why do we not have a controversy when Catholics and Protestants 100% agree that Protestant communion wafer never transubstantiate.

Having no controversy over this matter should be most troubling. When Christ said to “do this in remembrance of Me” Protestants forget to ask: what is this “this” while only focusing on the word “remembrance” (which is a memorial). Instead of focusing on what this “this” is, and on every “this”, Protestants said: “So in the very words that follow ‘this is (i.e., represents or signifies) my body,’ we have an undoubted Metaphor. ‘He took the cup…saying…this is my blood.’ Here, thus, we have a pair of metaphors.” (1)

If the bread and wine where “metaphor,” what then will they do when they read: “And with that he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:23)?

First we ask: when they received His breath, did they receive CO2 Carbon dioxide?

Was “this” ‘breathed air of Jesus’ simply an ‘allegory’ and the Son of God did not breath? Likewise, was this “blood” Christ said “is my blood” simply “wine” and was this “body” Christ said is “My Body” simply bread?

If this was the case, the “Holy Spirit” Christ breathed was simply “breath”.

It is this sort of forced ‘over symbolizing’ that Protestants do in their interpretation where heresy enters. 

Of course, today, when we use the word “remembrance,” we generally think in modern terms as “not to forget,” but is this a biblical view of remembrance?

For example, “But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.” (Hebrews 10:3) Remembrance here is a sacrifice and is also an action.

When scriptures say: “that you may be remembered before the LORD your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies” (Numbers 10:9) does it mean that “the LORD” simply forgot and now remembered and only then took action?

No. “Remembrance” is inseparable from a resulting action. 

It would be ridiculous to think that God forgets. To do this in “remembrance” is observance, sacrifice, and action that transforms one condition to another. Therefore it is remembrance and action are one and the same. Here God “remembers” and “saves”. This theme is in several chapters of scripture.:

But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided. (Genesis 8:1)

God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot lived. (Genesis 19:29)

Then God remembered Rachel, and God gave heed to her and opened her womb. (Genesis 30:22)

For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant. And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness. (Psalm 105: 42-43)

Communion is not as Protestants accuse “a repetition of Christ’s sacrifice” and is more than a “mere commemoration”. It is a perpetual sacrificial feast. And if in doubt, Malachi (as well as Daniel) end all arguments:

“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations [gentiles], and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure …” (See Malachi 1:10-11).

The fact that such offering is done by the Gentiles (not the Jews) and is called “grain offering” leaves no question, this is a ‘sacrifice’ and is the Christian communion which continues “for ever” fulfilling Exodus 12.

To solidify the argument, the previous verse where God cancels Israel’s sacrificial offering in verse 10 making the issue as clear as the sun. And once we examine the whole context it becomes even clearer than the sun, the stars in heaven, the mountains, the deserts and the seas:

Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates [no more temple sacrifices], that you might not uselessly kindle fire on My altar! [no burnt offering] I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord of hosts, “nor will I accept an offering from you. For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations [gentiles, not Jews], and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering [sacrificial offering, communion] that is pure [perfect]; for My name will be great among the nations [gentiles],” says the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 1:10-11) 

This is a universal system to be observed everywhere and at all times as if Christ’s passion is current and forever. And since God, as all the faithful agree, is above and beyond the restrictions of time (Psalm 90:2) this is a continual event of Christ’s Passion.

God is “beyond time,” while controversies still arise from Protestants unaware they denounce this when they accuse Catholics of re-sacrificying Christ. It is crucial for me to state that while many would take my writ here as an attack on Protestants, God forbid, it is a defense of Catholicism. It was the Protestants who split and attacked and the Catholics simply defended. But despite the struggle, and if on one occasion even Christ honored the Samaritan over the Pharisee, and so will I prefer a faithful Protestant unaware of the facts, yet he seek, over any claiming Catholic who does not and could care less on the matters of God.

The Protestant argument is true, but it is an incomplete truth. Christ was sacrificed “once and for all,” Christ wanted us to also remember that by partaking of this bread and wine, (which are also symbols of his body and blood), we symbolically partake of the Lamb of God offered on the altar on the cross, and by this we participate in the act of communion, we proclaim ourselves not only partakers, but also offerers of the sacrifice and also beneficiaries of it.

But what is also true is that it becomes ludicrous to think that a modern use of “remembrance” as to simply “remember”. Such an exclusive interpretation makes useless what the New testament warned us from the beginning: “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Corinthians 11:29). This mandates confession and reconciliation with God prior to consuming the Lamb of God as a continual sacrifice “forever” as prophesied in Exodus 12. This ‘remembrance’ is a crucial issue and is central to our faith in Christ. 

But no matter what we write here, the ardent rejectionist and the stubborn ignorant will never cease in creating controversies, refutations and counter refutations ad nauseam to even use gnostics to say that the idea of Christ’s passion as being current in the Eucharist is tantamount to a pagan ritual. (2)

It matters not what primitive sources we use, that clearly made the doctrine of the Eucharist as the literal flesh and blood, they would demand that we produce a more scientific explanation from the primitive church to show that “God, acting in the eucharist, effects a change in the inner reality of the bread and wine.” The devil will always take us through the rabbit trail.


We can perhaps better explain the mystery of the Eucharist when we examine other matters of theology. In attempting to box in God from their perspective of time and by use of isolated verses, Protestants act as if Jesus is the ‘sole vehicle’ we occupy with our daily petitions for the forgiveness of sin. The Protestant daily insists no one delivers them to Him but that He alone drives such petitions to the Father insisting He avoids the carpool lane.

If Christ ‘does it all’ (which sounds solid when we say it), why then do we not also petition only Him to “make disciples of all nations,” and only Him to “baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and only He “teach them to obey everything I have commanded you”?

While both sides agree this is an absurdity, but such absurdities should make us think. So if Jesus can “make disciples” and so can the disciples also make disciples; and if Jesus can “teach” and so can the disciples teach; and if Jesus can “forgive” and so can the disciples forgive; shouldn’t we then think that “they” too can also forgive sins as an extension of Christ’s office?

The Protestant will say: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

So what “they” (the disciples) do, Christ also is the one who does through them, even including the dreaded verse Protestants avoid and spin: “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:23)

Remember, this is scripture.

Likewise with the Eucharist. If Christ can shine through the apostles and priests to forgive sins, turn water into wine, He can also turn the Eucharist into His flesh. Should it take a spin-artist to explain that Christ is in the Eucharist which we partake in and consume? This should not be difficult to believe, yet it is only difficult when we try to scientifically analyze it. If we accept without fully comprehending that the Eucharist is the real body of Christ, then we can also fully accept, and without comprehending how a sick woman grabs Christ’s garments and she is healed (Luke 8:43) and how another who walks under the shadow of Peter, he is also healed (Acts 5:15) and how the apostles “brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.” (Acts 19:12)

And so we ask another Jesus-style question: were Christ’s garments, Peter’s shadow, even the handkerchiefs and aprons, have more significance than the Eucharist which Christ specifically instructed “this is My Body” and where God shone through? Did the Eucharist have no more significance than the garments and handkerchiefs or the shadow? Is it the shadow that healed? Is it Peter? Or is it Christ that heals through Peter just because the sick trusted in the shadow of a disciple of Christ?

All this clear scripture while the ardent skeptic always asks for verses saying “show me from the scriptures”.

Even more astonishing, and to solidify our argument, in scripture, we find no instruction where Christ said “this is my garment, touch and be healed” or Peter saying “this is my shadow, walk under …” or any disciple saying “this is my apron, touch and be free from the demons”. Yet we have “this is My Body”.

Is it true that if one can provide a direct verse from scripture over a matter would the ardent Protestant  tremble in belief? 

No. This is why he is Protestant. He will protest everything Catholic.

So here we provided a direct verse when Jesus told the disciples “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven”. 

Search this verse on Google and see how little hits it gets. It is mostly in Bible search engines. Search it in comparison to “by faith you are saved” (which doesn’t even exist in scripture, it is “by grace you are saved”) and see how many more hits you get, including all the propaganda that is being pumped on poor souls.

 “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven,” says Christ. Christ did not care about driving the vehicle in a carpool lane. He did not say “Jesus alone” takes the confessions from the sinner.

While God alone has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:7), it is only possible for men to forgive others through the power of God which was granted to them through Christ in scripture.

And to compound my challenge, the Jesus-style question is, that if Jesus is the sole vehicle we occupy our petitions for forgiveness of sin and if only His first disciples can do this, and no one else after them, why would Christ promise: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age”?

Fathom this one for a moment: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age”?

How could Christ be with only these disciples to the very end of the age when they died shortly after He left?

So besides not paying close attention to the “this” they do not pay attention to the “you”.

This “you” can never be only the apostles, but the Church. It includes every priest who succeeds them as one unit with Christ and is why He said to the disciples (priests) “to the end of the age” since their ministry extends to the end.

Oneness, unity and Théōsis (more on that later) was the core on how the church was one bundle that was difficult to break.

Didn’t the disciples hand down the same office to their successors when the apostles speak of them as pastors and elders in each city? In Acts 14:23 “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church”; 1 Timothy 5:17-22; “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor,” Titus 1:5; “thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee, ” 1 Peter 5:1; “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am [also] a fellow elder …”.

“Ordaining elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” is a succession, no doubt. 

Never once do we see these churches act solely on their own. These too had their authority conferred upon them by Christ through His disciples so on and so forth “until the end of the age”. 

Never in the New Testament a local church was left to the judgment of the pastor’s whims as we see today in the Evangelical and Messianic circles, mind you, they claim to emulate an unhistorical nostalgia for a church that never was.

Rather, it was reached by these representatives as in Acts 15 that “the apostles and elders” arrived at the synod’s dogmatic conclusions, and it was binding on the whole church, globally, which adhered to Christ’s command that we be “one”, not just in spirit universally but authoritatively through the “apostles and elders” and thereby the system of church governance was established.

I repeat, Christ had the disciples hold an office granting them the authority to “forgive sins” and even “retain sins” from whomever confesses their sin: “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Such an office is nonexistent in the Protestant churches. It is here where the devil excels urging man to only rely on his scientific knowledge and his earthly mental faculty where he cannot fathom succession (all the way from the primitive church) or how Christ will be with the church “until the end of the age”.

Likewise in the Eucharist. The Protestant argues that the priest has no authority to in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) to say the Words of Institution, “This is my body,” then transubstantiation becomes instantaneous. The Protestant argues that ‘only Christ’ can manifest Himself, that ‘only Christ’ can forgive sins. If so, how then could the disciples observe such an office in forgiving sins, just as Christ did?

So crucial was Communion that I have posted an entire essay on how Antichrist will abolish the Eucharist and why this made me Catholic (a must read before you continue here).

And I ask yet another Jesus-style question: if the Eucharist is simply “in remembrance” as if one observes a scene of Christ at the last supper or His Passion; why is it then, that Antichrist “put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering” that such an event is so crucial that it signals the countdown of His return?

Why is this “grain offering” called “sacrifice” and why did not Daniel speak of stopping the hymnals, prayers, abolish the Bible, church demolitions … which went on and off throughout history and yet all this never signaled Christ’s return.

To Christ, such a warning was very crucial “that when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet” where Antichrist “will suspend [both] the sacrifice and grain offerings” (Daniel 9:27) which is the Communion of Bread Sacrifice that Christ warned in Mark 13:14Matthew 24:15, to pay attention to Daniel 9:27.


I suppose this too will create much controversy to say that “sacrifice” and “grain offering” is all allegoric of the believers suffering since scripture says “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice” or that the “grain offering” is also symbolic of our prayers offered to Christ … or that this is a Jewish Temple and God is upset since He so desires to reestablish animal sacrifices for Israel and this would be a symbolic gesture in the millennium.

All such controversy has a volume of scriptural writ to debunk the most ardent Messianic who loves to calculate and re-imitate rabbinic old customs, while forgetting that only the apostolic succession kept spices, menorahs, garments and even sacrificial altars in the same way the primitive church observed.

Being true Messianic is becoming Catholic.

Again, and if I may paint a different portrait of such importance this sacrifice is, which Protestants undermine; why would the termination of it cause Christ to come down to earth? And if one is to put this in perspective of our modern thinking, it is as if the lights went out in all churches roundabout the Antichrist’s kingdom where the only fixer is Christ, Who, in order to correct such abomination, has to return to do what Judas Maccabee did to cleanse the Altar and turn lights on.

And this is what did happen, as a type, which is well documented in the Books of the Maccabees that Protestants abandoned, which the Catholic holds dear as canonical. It is no wonder that Israel had to cleanse the Temple from that first abomination when Antiochus desecrated the Temple and they had to light up a menorah which only God could supply sufficient oil using what little oil they had.

Christ then does not view “grain offering” (communion) lightly. He views it as a timeless “sacrificial” offering and is why Antichrist wants to abolish it.

It was Christ who said: ” … if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.”

If we take communion as symbolic, this would mean that communion is simply reminding ourselves that we received Christ by believing in His sacrifice, why then take the bread especially that we are already saved?

I could look at a portrait of Christ to remember, read His words to remember, think of Him to remember, pray and meditate on Him to remember … which is what the Protestant does.

But the significance of the communion act itself with such flimsy interpretation renders the verse worthless since it clearly says: “if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you”.

If “eating His Flesh” is to be observed metaphorically, why then eat a wafer? Why the physical act of consuming the wafer?

The Protestant ‘scholars’ would counter with this: “Mark chapter 14, Jesus calls the wine ‘the fruit of the vine,’ when according to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, it had been turned into blood and hence not wine at all.” (page 658 of the Fourfold Gospel, by J.W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendelton).

While one should do their best to formulate a Jesus-style question, such an argument is a Judas-style question which basically asks: how could Jesus have turned the wine into blood, when He called it “fruit of the vine” and not “blood”?

To counter Judas we always ask Jesus-style questions: if the wine remains wine why did Jesus say: “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:29Luke 22:18)?

Do they drink from earthly vines in heaven? Keep in mind, Jesus was making reference to the Great Feast in Heaven after He separates the Sheep from the Goats (Abels from Cains) after the Resurrection of the Dead.

And we ask again: will heaven have literal grape vines? Heavens forbid. There will be no drinking or eating or giving in marriage. They will have to allegorize and continue to allegorize ad nauseam. Christ’s sacrificial offering will be as it is written in Exodus Passover: “for ever”. It is only then that we can comprehend Ezekiel’s Temple, Mount Zion, the Kingdom … and none of this can be fully comprehended without understanding the mystery of the Eucharist.

It is the scoffers and the Judases who when they see the Muslim they correctly tell him “have thou not known that heaven has no food or marriage?” Yet when the Protestant thinks of the Catholic, he thinks just like the very Muslim he proselytizes to, when what is needed is that both be proselytized by the Catholic and the Orthodox.

These issues are so crystal clear and one can find direct verses that are provided, yet they reject the doctrine that Christ can manifest in the Eucharist (although He walked through a wall) and can allow men to offer Christ’s forgiveness on behalf of Christ as ambassadors. They reject how merciful Christ can be that His delegates can forgive sins on His behalf, yet they sing “His mercy endures forever”. They speak of how the Catholic is so legalistic and unmerciful when they are so void of drinking this mercy just because it comes from a priest, but are so willing to grant it to the rebel, the divorcing spirit and the reprobate under the banner of “do not judge”.  

When it comes to communion, Hebrews 13:10 makes the compelling argument:

We have an altar from which the priests in the Tabernacle have no right to eat.

The verse, though so simple, we have the communion sacrificial altar which the [Jewish] priests in the Temple have no right to eat” yet to explain this away, Protestant scholars take it for a spin. To explain the background of this verse, Protestant scholar, F F Bruce correctly amplifies this thought commenting that indeed:

“Christians had none of the visible apparatus which in those days was habitually associated with religion and worship—no sacred buildings (Temple), no (Brazen) altars, no sacrificing (Levitical) priests. Their pagan neighbors thought they had no God, and called (NT believers) atheists; their Jewish neighbors too might criticize them for having no visible means of spiritual support.”


In other words, Paul responds, and he was saying indeed we too have a sacrificial altar where none of the others (Jews) are permitted to partake in. It is really that simple.

Instead, Protestants have no choice but to make this “Altar” figurative, that  believers under the New Covenant  spiritually feed on Jesus who is our altar. (3)

We are “eating Christ” when we trust him and obey him says Ray Stedman while Chuck Smith says “the altar he has in mind is the cross” adding “If you want to know where your breakfast of grace was prepared, the answer is (verse 10): We have an altar – the breakfast of grace was prepared on the altar of the cross where Jesus died for our sins.” R. Kent Hughes explains it as “we have an altar – we have an old rugged cross.”

If so, the Jesus-style question would be: why would the Jews have no right to spiritually feed on Jesus or the old rugged cross?

This would mean that Jesus never came to the Jew first. This ruins their argument.

But Hebrews 13:10 is an amazing verse like Malachi 1. In fact, it mimics Malachi 1:10-11:

“Who is there even among you who would shut the doors,
So that you would not kindle fire on My altar in vain?
I have no pleasure in you,”
Says the Lord of hosts,
“Nor will I accept an offering from your hands.
For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down,
My name shall be great among the Gentiles;
In every place incense shall be offered to My name,
And a pure offering;
For My name shall be great among the nations,”
Says the Lord of hosts.

Hebrews confirm this “shut the door” fulfilling Malachi’s prophecy (Malachi 1:10-11) when Paul said “the priests in the Tabernacle have no right to eat.” He has no right “to enter”, the “gate is shut”. The Jew would kindle fire on God’s Altar in vain and now “We [the Christians] have an altar from which the priests in the Tabernacle have no right to eat.”

This is proper Hermeneutics where prophecy and scripture interprets and validates other scripture. It is the way of the first church, it shows the folly of ignoring how simple the primitive church viewed our faith and how they accepted the mystery. We accept by faith and have God figure out all the complications.

The Protestant way is to complicate the obvious while at the same time simplify the mystery by denying God’s amazing nature.

It is the same method Muslims use addressing the Trinity. They ask the Christian to dissect it. Likewise Protestants ask the Catholic “how do you re-sacrifice Christ” and “how does the bread become literal flesh”.

I spent years in Protestant Sunday schools, the book of Hebrews 9-11; Jesus was portrayed as the sacrificial animal and the high priest, but throughout the entire scriptures He was never portrayed as an altar except in Hebrews 13:10.

It is here where they accuse the Catholic of scratching for any spec of evidence while forgetting that God at times covers up His most amazing mysteries in little specs, even a small host. Many like to discount this as a “single verse”, but dare anyone do such a thing? Can a Christian discount words like “maiden” and “seed of the woman” in the Old Testament, which is all we have in the Old Testament to prove “virgin birth”?

Discount these and you will face the judge for blasphemy.

There is not a single verse in the whole of scripture that portrays Christ as an “altar”. An “altar” is  distinctively Catholic while all Evangelicals did was to invent some ‘altar call’ where members come forward to the stage closer to where the pew, the drums and the loudspeakers are for a show off of some staged healing and salvation by repeating a formula made by the traditions of men. This never existed in the early church.maxresdefaultsdds

“We have an altar [Thysiastesion, altare], whereof they have no power to eat [Phagein, edere], who serve the [Jewish] tabernacle.”

Since St. Paul has just contrasted the Jewish food offering (Bromasin, escis) and Christian altar food, the partaking of which was denied to the non-Christian Jews, the inference is obvious: where there is an altar, there is a sacrifice. 

But the Eucharist is the food, which the Christians alone are permitted to eat: therefore there is a Eucharistic sacrifice.

Evangelicals would still object. They say that, in Apostolic times, the term altar was not yet used in the sense of the “Lord’s table” (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:21).

But this clearly begs the question, Malachi 1:7 prophesied it clearly links the two: “By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, ‘How have we polluted you?’ By saying that the Lord’s table may be despised.”

Paul wasn’t the first to introduce the name, it was also adopted from him by later writers such as Ignatius of Antioch. Keep in mind, Ignatius died in A.D. 107:

Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

And why does he use “one” “one” “one” … so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests …” (Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.)

Ever wonder why Christians are so divided today?

But I can hear the instant rebuke (I have heard it thousands of times) with “have you not known, the Pope said this and the Pope did that, and the priests did this and that?”

And I counter with another Jesus-style question: have you not heard that the bulk of the Old Testament is God’s chastisement of Israel and of an impending falling away in the New Testament prior to Christ Second Coming? Have you not heard that Catholics too can be critical of the Pope and can get away with it much easier than an evangelical being critical of his Calvary Chapel  pastor? Have you not heard that an excommunication is much more difficult to obtain and process than permanently getting an eviction from a Calvary Chapel? Have you not heard that a Catholic cannot simply divorce while the majority divorced at Calvary Chapel simply picked another adulterer down the road at another Calvary Chapel? Have you not heard that in Catholicism it is as Jesus said: “if a man marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9, see also Matthew 5:32) while Evangelicals take the verses for a spin?

… Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery … (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Have you not heard that divorce is an injury to the “covenant of salvation”?

So lets settle the argument over this “altar”. The Greek term for “altar” is thysiastērion, from the Greek root-word thysia meaning “sacrifice”, all 23 occurences in the New Testament have no symbolism and refers to a literal altar.

The second half of the verse – from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat corresponds with 1 Corintians 9:13: “Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?”, also “Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? (1 Cor 10:18)

Clearly, these are saying the Jews (especially Levitical Priests) are the ones who serve at and partake in the sacrificial food of the Levitical altars. Thus, it’s clear that the people in Hebrews 13:10b that “have no right to eat” at the Christian altar are the Jews. This leads to the second important conclusion: Hebrews 13:10 is saying there is a Christian counterpart or version of the Jewish sacrifical food at the Levitical altar.

If I paraphrase verse 10 in Protestant thinking, it makes no sense; We have an altar (who is Jesus Christ) from which (the non-Christian Jews) who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat!

We are left with no other choice but a literal altar. Corinthians 10:18-21 seals the deal:

“Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.”

“Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?” Communion is a sacrifice. Clearly, Paul is speaking of the Lord’s Supper right in the context of Jewish sacrifices and pagan sacrifices. There is nothing spiritual or metaphorical here. What is the “table of demons” but the pagan altar? Thus the “Lord’s table” is the Christian altar.

We should not have a problem with the term (Eucharist), it comes from the Greek eucharisteō (1 Corinthians 11:24) when Jesus gave thanks, and means “thanksgiving” and “praise” to God at Communion time. This explains why the Bible calls it “offering a sacrifice of praise” (v.15) which corresponds to 1 Corinthians 11, that Christians be in one mind in communion together. But the “sacrifice of thanksgiving” was still an actual animal sacrifice (Lev 7:12-15).

When Jesus said: “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Catholics ask why did they respond by saying: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” The Catholic contends that if Christ was only speaking symbolically about feeding on His flesh and drinking His blood (as most Protestants believe), then it is not really a “hard saying,” in other words “a tough bread to swallow”. There was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct misunderstanding, for there were none and no one any longer thought he was speaking metaphorically.

Protestants, in their attempt to build Jesus-style questions fail miserably and instead create Judas-style questions asking: why did Jesus’ rarely correct the misunderstanding of people? In other words, the Protestant says that Jesus is always being misunderstood and He rarely corrects the misunderstanding of people. That is “this hard bread to swallow” was simply their misunderstanding.

While it would take a library to show the examples on how this Judas-style question is flawed, I will use a few examples. Protestants use  John 2:18-21 as an evidence of their claim: “The Jews then said to Him, ‘What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?’” The Protestant would say “notice, Christ was not being literal here yet He did not correct the misunderstanding. This misunderstanding eventually leads to His conviction and death.”

But is this true? No.

Remember always, the Judas-spirit filled always speaks lies thinking they are Holy-Spirit filled. Christ, while He at times does not answer the doubting multitudes or Herod, He always does answer the saints. While the Jews were confused and Christ did not correct them, the Gospels, which the Holy Spirit accomplished did set the record straight: “But He was speaking of the temple of His body.” (John 2:21)

No where does John say: “but He was speaking symbolically” in John 2, such an assumption is from the spirit of Judas. In fact, this is exactly what Jesus said: “Does this [the bread being My flesh] cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh [plain bread] profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are lifeBut there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.

Jesus was very clear here, the Spirit gives Life and He added that this was a miracle as is the resurrection. He even added about how Judas did not believe Jesus can transform the bread into His flesh and with his doubts Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. This in itself is prophetic. Judas symbolically resembles Eucharist denial. The ‘Judas kiss’ resembles the outward appearance of belief (false love) and the form of godliness, when in reality their inner soul reject and blaspheme denying Jesus’ can turn bread into His literal flesh and unfortunately Protestants do not think of this dichotomy.


For to believe the Protestant arguments, this would mean that the Church was not Holy Spirit driven until  Zwingli showed up. These ‘Calvin’ and ‘Zwingli’ and ‘Luther’ were the first Judas to proclaim strict symbolism. This would be an evil spirit. Also, it is not true that Jesus did not “correct” He did, while Jesus did not correct the doubters, the scoffers and the ‘Judas’, He did correct the disciples and the record.

The devil loves to create controversy. The typical Judas arguments abound. Here is another one:

“John 3:3-4 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus said to Him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Notice again, Jesus does not correct Nicodemus’ misunderstanding (although, like in John 6, it is obvious to the reader that this is not to be taken literally).”

However, Jesus did set the record straight, “Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)

While the Catholic believes and is baptized “born of water and the Spirit” and on the one hand, consumes the bread to then utter truth; the millions of scoffers on the other hand, would vomit heresies and it would take every Catholic toiling their entire lives to clean it up. It is for this reason that Christ ignored the scoffer and is why He did not correct them while He corrected the saint.

I did not become Catholic because I studied apologetics or delved into Catholic theology. I became Catholic because I read the Scriptures, and monitored the scoffers. It is the scoffer and his mirky waters that caused me to cross the Tiber after searching the Scriptures. It was through the Scriptures that I became Catholic. I saw the two senses, the double-edged sword and the multiple ways to see what God says. “Born of water and spirit” is literal water and literal spirit. Neither are allegories for the Spirit is real. It was the water which the Holy Spirit hovered over to make life. I even memorized it from the Hebrew the first days I laid my hands on the holy-writ: “beresheet bara Elohim et Hashamayim, wa-et Haaretz …wa-Ruah Elohim merachefeth ala-Pene ha-mayim”. In English: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth … and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.”

The one sense says that God simply created the heavens and the earth and that God’s spirit hovered over the water to create life. But then there comes the other sense, the sense that Christ so desires we have, that through the sacrament of baptism and the Holy Spirit, we enter into this life eternal that we will never die and even if this mortal body dies, we are still alive and present with the Lord in the Kingdom of God. That in the Kingdom of Heaven, we still participate on Mount Zion: “You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant …” (Hebrews 12:22-24)

It is here where I became Catholic. It is here where no multitude of Judases can scoff, but only create the Judas-style question and the question when Lucifer said “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” And I ask a Jesus-style question: did God really not say that Eve must not eat from any tree from the Garden? Likewise did God really not say that we must come to “thousands upon thousands of angels” and “to the spirits of the righteous made perfect” and to “Jesus the mediator of a new covenant”?

And how could one enter unless we be “the spirits of the righteous made perfect”?

It is here where the lie “a priest cannot forgive sins” is completely shattered. To such priestly authority God said; “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High” (Psalm 82:6).

“Gods” and “sons of the Most High”?

This verse is only explained in the apostolic succession theology of Théōsis.

Théōsis is becoming heavenly through the process of becoming free of hamartía (“missing the mark”). This is not to be confused with being free of hamártēma “becoming free of sin”. Théōsis can never be unless the Christian continually partake of Christ’s literal body through communion and continually confessing their sins: “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). The whole salvation process is that man (Adam) sinned and was cast out and the process is to attain through the Holy Trinity to get back to original perfection.

Protestants do not want direct verses. What they want is to find ways to reject the first primitive church, the very church they claim they long to discover, which comprehended Théōsis theology.

Without the apostolic-succession churches (Catholic and Orthodox), understanding or participating in the Théōsis process is impossible for the protestant and regardless of Luther’s teachings on “union with Christ”. The ardent Evangelical and Calvinist Protestant will never comprehend or accept the mystery of the Eucharist or attain Théōsis. It is only through Théōsis that one can deal with sin, forgiveness and the intercession for petitions with heavenly saints and angels, which such process is mentioned in Hebrews 12:22-24.

It is here, where we find all the controversies, where God is most working and where the devil creates all the obstacles using systematic theology and complex jargon. Théōsis is the transformative process whose goal is likeness to or union with God and is why God calls His children “gods” and the “sons of God”. None of this can happen unless one connects to Christ via the mystery of the Eucharist, “the assembly of saints,” “angels,” and the entire “Mount Zion”.

And so for over two decades I watched Christians yearning to emulate the primitive church, where Messianic movements sprouted, which I have been participant as a teacher and speaker in hundreds of such events including television and radio. To these I ask a Jesus-style question: if the primitive church (church fathers) were the closest to the time of the apostles, what then becomes of the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible which conflicts with it, and how do we understand and practice Communion from the ancient perspective?


Chapel of Saint Ananias in Damascus, Syria where Ananias baptized Paul the Apostle

Théōsis differentiates between Catholic (the primitive church) and Protestant (the rebellious refromers). As St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. 130–202) said, God “became what we are in order to make us what he is himself” (see Adversus haereses, book 5, preface).

From Abraham to Moses and even Elijah who rose on a chariot to heaven and Paul who saw the third heaven, they only got there because they all had Théōsis. Irenaeus was the student of Polycarp who was the student of John. This would mean that mystical teaching of Théōsis was taught from the time of the apostles. Ever wonder why the Bible speaks of the Christian gaining a glorified body?

Keep in mind again, Irenaeus is from the first century church. This is no small issue, he also wrote: “If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods.” St. Athanasius also said: “God became man so that men might become gods”.

Did Irenaues blaspheme, or did he simply invent such theology, or was the primitive early church that was closely connected to men who ate from Jesus when He multiplied the two fish; Irenaues simply followed scripture as it was written and interpreted by the disciples through the Holy Spirit, not some holy mackerel.

And what difference is this from what Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) wrote:

“Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god” and when Paul wrote: “the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.” (see 1 Cor 15). 

How Théōsis was understood in the early church, in 70 AD, way before the false claim that ‘Constantine changed everything’’, it was because the priest had Théōsis that the early church was granted to forgive sins: “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:23).

As I discovered, not just from Holy Scripture, but even the earliest of what Christians taught that the believer should:

Confess your sins in church [not the closet], and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanksafter confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

Sacrifice? Do this “confession” before taking communion, never after? But first confess that your communion “breaking bread” that your “sacrifice” my be “pure”?

Isn’t this what Malachi prophesied “and a grain offering that is pure” (Malachi 1:11)?

This is what was taught and shared, mind you, in 70 AD. The Didache wasn’t called “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” for nothing. It was written in the days of the Apostles and their pupils.  It describes communion with the Unseen God in the Eucharist. In the earliest record of the church, in 70 AD, there was order, not chaos. One of the paths to Théōsis is achieved through being “partakers of the divine nature“:

you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (see 2 Pet. 1:4).

Should this leave any doubt? Through Théōsis the Christian shares in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. It is only then can we understand the infamous verse: “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12–13). Even Christ confirms it in John 10:34–36: “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”?

The process of achieving this is completely missing in today’s Protestant systematic theology, forgetting that God wants to mold us into perfection, but instead, they want to have us live life in suspense, thinking that Christ once and for all forgives our sins, past, present and future, without a process to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. A “work” is what it says. It is a struggle, effort, pain. “Fear” is what it says “fear” a continual fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom. “Salvation” is what it says “salvation”. It is not us, but through Christ and through us being one with Him we reach such state.

Many look down upon considering all this as the dreaded label of “works”. The whole problem with such misunderstanding was that Protestants filed all the spiritual matters of salvation in what they called  Systematic Theology where everything was filed (as typically Germans do) into neat compartments and instead of simply reading scripture, they read their Systematic Theology into Scripture. Systematic Theology tended to lose sight of earlier forms of theological exposition where Théōsis became virtually invisible to the eyes of modern Westerners who used quasi-technical vocabulary like “participation,” “union,” and “adoption”. The reason they avoided Théōsis because it unseats their systematic theology of intrinsic justification.

Théōsis in the primitive church model of salvation and sanctification which the Christian share in the glory that the Son has received from the Father as it was taught from Moses, Elijah to David including all the Old Testament prophets and then to St. John, St. Paul and St. Ignatius of Antioch to John Damascene and from St. Clement to Augustine.

Théōsis is the goal of the incarnation of God’s Son and the Eucharist is the continuation of the Incarnation.

The Protestant reformers took theology and explained it in scientific models and in legal terminology and used forensic methods. By doing this they robbed it from its mystical wealth. The ideal in Christian walk is to supernaturalize us making us in God’s image (as Adam was before the fall), to participation in the divine life and not the earthly life, where the Protestant continues his life thinking he is unworthy and his works are like “filthy rags”.

It is the devil’s lie to interpret Isaiah 64:6, where the Bible says, “our acts of righteousness are as filthy rags” to mean all the acts of the Christian. The devil takes a snippet of verse. The context of this verse says otherwise:

“But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved? All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. Your sacred cities have become a desert; even Zion is a desert, Jerusalem a desolation.” 

This speaks of sinning against God without repentance and return to the former state. It is only then that God abandoned them where Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed.

Systematic theology make justification a legal term saying that man is righteous in the eyes of God because of Christ’s imputed righteousness. But the primitive church taught that justification is the internal translation of man from the state of sin to the state of grace, for it is by “grace you are saved through faith” and not “by faith alone” which is not in scripture. It was the one who accuses the Catholic of legalism infused all the legalistic terminology which caused all this schism. 


So here we had, grasshoppers who say that salvation is only obtained by having a “personal relationship with Jesus” as if their walk was better than centuries of saints reaching Théōsis (a true personal relationship) who even after they died, their bodies remained incorruptible.

If the Reformation was right about sola fide and sola Scriptura, where doth Christ say: “justification is by grace alone, through faith alone”? Fact is, the more that the reformers pushed this, the more that they ended up concluding that “saving faith” was “faith formed by charity,” exactly what Catholics taught.

Luther pushed extrinsic justification by insisting it occurs outside of man. Yet ‘grace alone’ which Catholicism also teaches that justification originates outside of man (indeed, only God’s grace, not man’s faith alone which in itself is a work) but this happens only through God’s grace alone, where God is the one who justifies man by effecting this change within him. The change is therefore from God, the grace is solely from God, and the works is God’s where man simply mirrors God’s desire since He was created in the image of God to reflect God through theosis, being one with God.

And so I ask yet another Jesus-style question: where is this in Protestantism? Where are the two-senses and Théōsis? It is simply gone to isolate biblical verses that makes clear how God works through man as He worked through David, then the stone, then the crushing of Lucifer’s head. It is this formula that Christ defeats “the works of the devil” by our works of righteousness which comes only through God’s grace. It is only when we awake to this truth that we find the other sense of communion with Christ: the spiritual communion. This is why “the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8)

It is the notice by the believers to the needs of charity that sparks the faith so that it becomes saving faith. This is not the natural disposition of the unsaved and is the work of God. This doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) which the reformers pushed and is today peddled from the stages was simply pushing extrinsic justification, yet it ended up having to admit and even uphold “justification by grace alone (sola gratis),” which is so fundamentally Catholic but then they removed any real substance on how to attain such grace.

What about the church fathers that finally put the nail on the coffin of my errors which I buried never to look back. Evangelicals (especially Messianic evangelicals) cry out about two issues, the first was that Constantine turned true Christianity upside down, and the second was that we needed to do a holy pilgrimage to find the pre-Constantine primitive church which we thought was purely Jewish. The pilgrimage was more like a Muhammadan camel caravan in the deserts of Arabia, where we had to avoid all the stops where paganism crept into Catholicism. But the problem was that every pilgrim had the same Protestant theology packed in his pouch and so they borrowed from Judaism whatever the consuming locusts left by rewriting it in pure English before then taking a pepper shaker to sprinkle Sasame street level Hebrew phrases and another whole new movement was created and ushered in to prepare for the Temple. But regardless of all the puritanical attempts to travel as far back as possible, something still had be done since all the roads led to Rome.


So what did they do when they reached Rome? They, like a Nero, a consuming locust, and like the Nazi when the Burschenschaften piled all the books and burned them in heaps including all the beautiful iconic works; “all its carved work They smash with hatchet and hammers.” (Psalm 74:6)

They burned Rome to the ground, including all its rich history. Rome, just as they were taught from Protestant theology, became “harlot” and “Antichrist”. Whatever they kept of it, they dealt with in two ways. The first, to only use selective quotes from that era or reinterpret these quotes in the same method they reinterpreted  scriptures. The second was to advocate that the church fathers are totally irrelevant since “we only need the word of God”. As to the first, one will always find the Protestant modus operandi, that is, to use only selective quotes (half of the truth) by ignoring the ‘two senses’ rule of the type of hermeneutics the primitive church used. It is always crucial to keep this in mind every time you read anti-Catholic Evangelical and Messianic apologetics. Others (mostly of the simple mindset) make the Church Fathers to become completely irrelevant since they argue “all I need is Scriptures”.

The second was always peddled to us as we attended the Baptist church. Who after all, can argue with such huff-and-puff in typical Americana John Wayne style: “all I need is the Word of God“?

It is the response one finds in every half-baked argument while ignoring the obvious Jesus-style argument: “all we need is the correct interpretation of the Word of God”. It was impossible to avoid since we have thousands of different opposing ‘correct interpretations’ of the same book. The church became like a tree with thousands of branches. Why not simply climb down from the soft branches at that high tower of Babel back down to the trunk of early Christianity, even prior to Constantine–to see how they understood not just the Bible–but what was passed down to them by the apostles, their students and their students students?

diag copy

Mind you, they all agree on this one, that we need to go back to the early church, but reality is, they won’t since they will find out that there is a conflict in interpretation. This is why they would simply argue that in the Bible, we already have the church fathers, the apostles and these were very clear, so they say. But what they meant by this, is that their interpretation is so clear, that it matches the Bible perfectly. In reality, their interpretation is what becomes scripture and is what is meant by “all we need is the word of God” when in reality, the grasshopper is saying “I am God”. This is the spirit of what Satan told Eve thinking that their eyes finally opened up to the truth.

Leaving the root was the rebellion of Babel. So why won’t they return? The reason is simple: the hatred of obedience to authority. They differ, from each and every one them, the grasshopper disagrees on so many issues. They even differ on how to interpret what Jesus meant to be “one” where some argue that the Kingdom is “all believers from different denominations”. While it is true that Christ is sovereign and He can save a non-apostolic, this does not mean that such interpretation is true, since for centuries the church was one body under one apostolic ecclesiastical authority.

And in order to avoid “obedience,” the Bible, they say, seems marvelously clear when it comes to the essentials of doctrine—so clear that Christians across all times agreed with its summary in the ecumenical creeds. This they say is in sharp contrast with the massive Catholic library of deliverances from councils, counter-councils, counter-counter councils, popes, counter-popes, so on and so forth.

However, if one takes such a Judas style argument to be true, the counter argument is the Jesus style question: while the councils and counter councils ended up in a uniform set of belief system, how can the other side be satisfied with the Protestant libraries of deliverance from Church of England, the Wesley Methodist Church split off from the Church of England advocating the so-called “Holiness”, then from the Calvinist “Once saved, always saved,” and then we had splits within splits where Lutheranism was plagued with bitter Muslim-style controversy as if it was between Shiites and Sunnis after Muhammad’s death; Luther’s entrusted friend Philip Melanchthon betrays Luther then as soon as Luther died, like the Muslim ‘Khawarij‘ (the defectors) who defected, Protestants continued to split and created the Philippists who went against Luther’s gnesio-Lutheranism and then sprouted the group who formed the Formula of Concord? 

Then what about all the other splinters? We had more splits, not after centuries as we see in the Catholic, but decade after decade. They had the Antinomistic Controversy (1527-1560) where it was said that “the 10 commandments belong in a courtroom, not the pulpit.” We see today re-arise amongst the grace movement like Andrew Farley who wants it abolished even in the court room. Then we had the The Adiaphoristic Controversy where they wanted the re-institution of Roman Catholic ceremonies. Then we had the Osiandristic and Stancarian Controversy where it was said that Christ justified us through His human nature alone which is utter blasphemy. Then we had the Majoristic Controversy where “Good works are necessary for salvation.” Then we had the Synergistic Controversy where opposing Lutherans held that unregenerate man is spiritually dead in sin and can in no way cooperate in conversion. Then we had The Flacian Controversy teaching that original sin is not an accident but the very substance of fallen man. Then we had the Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy, which was sort of like the infusion of Shiite and Sunni into what became Islam’s Sufism. This resulted from the intrusion of Calvin’s teaching within Lutheranism where Melachthon’s followers began to introduce such Calvinistic phraseology into their teachings (which we have so many today do). Then we had The Hamburg Controversy involving Christ’s descent into hell saying it was part of his suffering and humiliation instead of his exaltation (which we have seen charismatic tele evangelists like Benny Hinn say). Then we had the Strasburg Controversy which dealt with the doctrine of predestination, and it went against the teaching of “once saved, always saved” which we also have today.


It is an unavoidable truth; there are only two fountains. God ordained things in this way from Cain and Abel in Genesis to the Sheep and Goats and the Wheat and the Tares. Everything falls under the prophecies etched by God and the whole of scripture is prophetic. No matter which rabbit hole, what corner, what pilgrim one takes, the bottom line is that there is only one fork on the road. Should I have ignore all this prophecy and drink from the fountain of Geneva and Zwingli on the major issue of the Eucharist? Mind you, their ideas stemmed from Cornelius Henrici Hoen who got his ideas about the Eucharist from Wessel Gansfort. This is a very serious issue. If in doubt click the links. Gansfort had some weird theology saying that God must be addressed as both Father and Mother, based on his reading of Psalm 25:6. He even said of Christ that “the Word incarnate [Christ] is my brother and sister” making Christ the double-gendered creator god while undermining much of scholastic theology that taught God is the supreme being, instead  Gansfort taught that Christ came not for the salvation of only man but animals as well giving birth to the equality between man and animal. How many grasshoppers even know, Gansfort is proclaimed by Protestants as “Reformer Before The Reformation“. Gansfort was one who gave ammunition to liberal humanism.

This one even accused the Catholic sacraments (as typical of grasshoppers) of witchcraft and demonism, just as we see so prevalent amongst antagonists who speak of every miracle from Fatima to the preservation of saintly bodies as “demonic” without being admonished by Jesus Himself when He condemned such accusation without cause. When Jesus healed, the pharisees used 1 Kings 22:23 saying to beware of “lying spirits” accused Him of being of Beelzebub. Christ countered: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined … If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself …” (see Matthew 12:22-28)

Satan will never carry out miracles that glorify God and isn’t a “kingdom divided” just as bad as a “church divided”? So the Jesus-style question is: if church fathers have infinitesimal importance, why protestants then seek their own church fathers? The answer will reveal, that no matter what side the Christian follows, the interpretation regarding scripture, must come from either Church Fathers or the Protestant so-called reformers.

This is the bottom line. The lie that was peddled with “scripture alone” was not the issue. The real issue is whose interpretations of scripture does the grasshopper follow. No matter what, the scripture does not exist in a vacuum; the Church is the Christian plus his Bible. No matter what grease one applies to the slippery-fish, there is no way around the Jesus-style checkmate; “all I need is the word of God” becomes obsolete to only face reality of what we argued; all we need is the correct interpretation of the word of God, and there is only one source: the church fathers, that stems from the apostolic-sucsession.

And today, all these old protestant controversies are back in full force while each schism claims they were  inspired by the same Holy Spirit. And we ask; does this not constitute blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Nothing has changed, but simply put, each branched into indefinite sub branches and sub-sub branches. Instead of confessing the sin, we have thousands of controversies and tens of thousands of denominations each with hair-splitting arguments over the scriptures which the primitive church had already interpreted through the Holy Spirit and set the record straight once and for all.

The key to resolving all these troubles is to stop focusing on what they are all fighting over, from Messianic to Evangelical, Baptist to Lutheran, Pentecostal to Calvinist, they all should stride to pilgrim back to the primitive church without avoiding Rome. It was Rome where Paul pilgrimed to from Jerusalem. To the Gentiles is Rome as to the ancient Jew was Jerusalem.

The Jesus-style question still stands: how did the primitive church understand the basics of Communion?

It is the proper understanding of Communion that will bring all these together.

Many realize that there is no escape, we must deal with the issue on how the primitive church interpreted scriptures. For example, one of our critics, Calvinist apologist James White who understood long ago the folly of ignoring church fathers. White however, only uses selective quotes from Tertullian, Augustine and others, while apologist James McCarthy considers the whole primitive church completely “irrelevant”.

Either approach cannot avoid the unavoidable and is why I swam the Tiber after having swam both murky rivers of Islam and Protestantism. While Protestant, watching debates between Muslims and Christians or between Protestant and Catholic was a complete waste of time. Each party had limited time and both sides accuse the other of dishonesty. I realized quickly that expert debaters like White are mainly concerned about winning more than they are concerned about the obvious truth. They use sophist argumentation and complicate the simple and simplify the complicated. It was a complete waist of time trying to weed out White’s approach of explaining everything by applying systematic theology in his argumentations. That plus he was infused by his Calvinism of predestination, which was akin to Islam’s Al-Qada’ Wal-Qadar (fatalism).This is the type of flaw that is caused from a systematic approach to scriptures. In Islam, Allah has predetermined, known, ordained, and is constantly creating every event that takes place in the world be it good or evil. Calvin considered it an unfathomable mystery that God seems to simultaneously will sin. This is much different from the Catholic where God predestines no one to go to hell as Calvin taught. To the Catholic God gives us free will. Watching someone like White carefully quote church fathers to make arguments, there is so much he had  to ignore which ultimately refuted his core arguments.

The church fathers were a double edged sword and apologists like White knows this since there is only one way to avoid the fathers is be reinterpreting them since he knew that the Jesus-style question still stands: did Christ fail building His church until his Calvin showed up? There is only one way to answer this question. This is, that the Calvinist Mr. White had to show that Christ did not fail. But the only way to respond to this challenge was to deliberately twist what the first Christian said, or even omit, or else, Jesus then failed and His entire Messianic Kingdom is rendered obsolete.

This is the whole crux of the matter. When one examines White’s argumentations with Catholics about the church fathers; it is like watching the Galilean who tries to sell Apricots in Gilo or sell cucumbers in Bethlehem. Gilo is known for its superb apricots and my village Beit Sahur, Bethlehem, sells the best Armenian cucumbers. Yet White will always respond like the food critic as if he never once had a good apricot or a crispy cucumber like the ones coming out of his meager kitchen.

It is for this reason that the advocates of “the church fathers matter not” are caught in the same Jesus-style checkmate and is why there argument needs not to be addressed.

But debating these is as if one is playing chess with man’s destiny. The Calvinist believes that even his lies are destined. So regardless that White’s sister, after years of incest and sexual abuse by their father, it was all ‘destined for good’ but to White the greater sin was his sister’s conversion to Catholicism. I do not look on White with scorn for His father’s sin which James is innocent of, however, to overlook his father who shamed his own daughter is an issue.

My father meddled with Islam’s Sufism where he got possessed, even ran in the nude at the wee hours of the night on the hills and the valleys in Bethlehem. Everyone in the village knew him thought he was mad. But as I read the works of Christ, how the naked man was possessed and how Christ did an exorcism, it reminded me, it was the Catholics, not the Calvinists, who were the best exorcists.


But God arranged history in a way that makes it easy to generate countless Jesus style questions with a checkmate on every move the schismatics and the sophists make. To say that the church fathers are absolutely irrelevant (as many argue) creates a Jesus-style question that is also impossible to answer: how do we then know what Christians believed for fifteen centuries and confirm the Church Christ promised to establish “I will build My Church”? It is here where Catholicism thrives debunking the grasshopper.

To answer this question, what then must we say of Justin Martyr who wrote of the Eucharist during 151 A.D., what baffled my mind when I was Protestant:

not as common bread, nor common drink do we receive these; but … as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that Incarnated Jesus.” Justin Martyr (151 A.D. His First Apology 66, 20).

We find such references confirming the Catholic Eucharist being the real presence from St. Ignatius of Antioch (110A.D.), St. Irenaeus (140-202 A.D.), Tertullian (155-250 A.D.), Origen, St. Clement, St, Cyprian … Try to google this to see how James White responds and there you find complete silence.

And so the Jesus-style question compounds. If St. Irenaeus refers to previous teachers “as we have been taught” (as in the past), he was the student of Polycarp who was also “taught in the past” directly from St. John the apostle. The latter wrote major parts of scripture. John was there during these times when these books were etched. Never once did John object to what was taught. Even Christ Himself when He appeared to John never once complained to the Seven Churches about any of this teaching. Polycarp was the student of John the apostle. This is no small matter considering how he was martyred.


When he had pronounced this amen, and so finished his prayer, those who were appointed for the purpose kindled the fire. And as the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was given to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved that we might report to others what then took place. For the fire, shaping itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when filled with the wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the martyr. And he appeared within not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread that is baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, we perceived such a sweet odour [coming from the pile], as if frankincense or some such precious spices had been smoking there.

To say that “the Bible can interpret itself and needs not the Church” is saying that the Bible lives in a vacuum. The church is the Christian plus the Bible. Has anyone documented any story where missionaries drop Bibles from a plane on some jungle savages to see what happens? What we would get if we believe that everyone can individually ‘interpret’ is neither Catholic or reformed theology; what the savage will do is put the paper to good use to kindle a fire while God would not blame the savage; He would blame the ignorant missionary; the Bible can never be operated without the original church just as a woman can never bring forth a child without a man, unless of course its through the Holy Spirit. 

It is rather amazing to see how God operated to redeem us. Such an event only occurred once and to one choice: St. Mary. Likewise, when it comes to interpreting the major doctrines, The Holy Spirit operated once and for all, in the first church. To deny this becomes as serious as denying the Virgin Birth, which the Church only had a few words to prove her virginity from the Old Testament. The scoffer argued that this word was “maiden” and not “virgin” which created two camps: either Jesus was the Son of God or was a bastard child. One word can drive man’s destiny to blaspheme and deserve eternal damnation. God wanted the soul to seek with all of our soul, heart and might. One word. How about entire verses and an entire history?

amazon 2

Which is the more serious offense, to “forgive sins” or to claim to represent the Holy Spirit? The grasshopper plays God without even recognizing their blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Today’s charismatics reek with ‘God told me’ in utter blasphemy which was the main reason I began to feel certain repugnances every time I travelled to speak at churches where I taught God not ‘reform’ but ‘restore’ what the swarming locusts has eaten, the crawling locusts, the consuming locusts, and the chewing locusts … it is only when I became Catholic that I can truly fathom what Joel spoke of regarding these locusts and how God will restore what the locusts have done when He revives and cleanses the Catholic Church. Joel’s prophecy had a deeper sense regarding God’s Kingdom. It is only on such rare occasions that Catholic saints would say ‘Mary told me’ and even that had to get the scrutinizing Church to approve which at times took decades. When Mary showed up at Zeitun in Egypt, or in Mexico, it stopped tremendous massacres and bloodshed. It converted souls to her Son by the millions.

The chewing locusts rode the storm of confusion, not into Muslim lands where the swarming Muslim locusts converted the ones who “do not have the seal of God on their foreheads”. Whatever was left of   apostolic-succession lands is to be consumed by the chewing locusts to leave nothing of what was not consumed by the Muslim swarming locusts. God allows it since Job had to be tested and the Church must be tested with fire.

I loved the chewing locusts, spent two decades begging them to stop chewing, calling the Catholic Vatican ‘Harlot’ and Russia ‘Gog and Magog’ and teaching that the U.S. to become desolate of saints after their departure to heaven, when the wrath of the devil and Antichrist consumes what has been ‘left behind‘. I entered their strongholds, this entire system that was built, a mega-industry, I went through TV interview after TV interview while they pumped day in and day out a simplistic booklet version of the truth: The Gospel According to Grasshopper.


In every essay we wrote on the response method of the grasshopper would rarely if ever address evidence presented, but to either change the subject by applying two instant methods: 1) hail a rain of problems with Catholicism in the form of red-herrings or to 2) simply say that what we wrote is untrue and to respond they did a quick-and-dirty version of the Gospel According to Grasshopper. This gospel according to grasshopper would simply be bullet points with machine-gun-like verses on how to be ‘born again’ and how you ‘must leave your apostolic-succession church now’ to ‘invite Jesus’ and then ‘receive your certificate of salvation’ where ‘you are now ready to perform the most complex of heart surgeries better than any seasoned theologian or priest’.

In this system, grasshopper after grasshopper is produced, until they swarmed going roundabout attacking every green thing the Catholics planted since now they are all instant heart-surgeons with an X-ray Holy Spirit ability to tell just from your apostolic-succession label that your heart is clogged and you are on your way to damnation. Each grasshopper is now a Pope, theologian, expert interpreter and historian. Mind you, all the grasshopper knows about history are tidbits like ‘Titus destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D.,’ ‘Antiochus killed a pig in the temple,’ and ‘Constantine changed Christianity and transformed it into paganism’ where ‘Catholics are idol worshippers who inherited everything (Eucharist and Icons) from Nimrod and Samiramis’. It was bullet-point myth after another myth that no historian approves of and the grasshopper does not recognize that the Holy Spirit will never lead anyone into error–not just on biblical issues–but from mathematics to history, the Holy Spirit never taught error.

Even the poor Christmas tree was simply the grasshopper’s training field, where he eats the evergreen conifer including the beautifully set iconic displays of Jesus, Joseph and Mary placed under it by a loving mother or the local township. Ask them to show a time-line between Nimrod and Samriamis and they do not want to even know that the two were not even in the same period of history. History is of no essence and church fathers were simply stupid ignoramuses who did not know how to interpret as well as the grasshopper does.


For two decades, I entered entire messianic movements that sparked on this premise selling a handful words of Hebrew in exchange for millions of souls that deny the Trinity. So many of these were ready to be consumed by other locusts: the demons in hell, all the while St. Clement, Martyr and Irenaeus were according to many of these are all hellhound.

These could decide someones salvation for simply calling them “a troll” or just because you did not believe that they were prophets when they daily muttered “the Lord told me” as if their very grasshopper scratch was an epistle with chapter and verse.

And as if St. Irenaeus and Polycarp are not evidence enough, or as if these Christian scholars were not living far back enough, even though they lived a couple centuries before Constantine. Even before Irenaeus, we have St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-107 A.D. from the same time when John taught and wrote) and St. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.) show that the Church has consistently understood Christ’s words to be literally referring to His True Flesh and Blood. This was evident in all the writings of the early Church saints like: St. Ambrose (340-397 A.D.), and St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 A.D.) Although all the faithful in the Church have always believed in the concept of transubstantiation, there was no need to formally define it until 1215 in the Fourth Lateran Council. (4)

And so the scoffing grasshopper says it was invented in the thirteenth century.

If one is to address such an accusation, it is as if one chants the most ancient of Hebrew hymnals, Avino Melkeinu (Our Father Our King), or the Shema Yesrael (Hear O Israel) and says that these  great and wonderful chants which the Chazan Jew did and the Muslim later being clueless of this pedigree, adapted the style in his Azan (call to prayer) to say that the Shema and the Avino, were not sang at the time of Christ, since we do not have a recording of it until the nineteenth century!

In Israel, we can go as far back as the time of Christ from the traditions to know that Avinu Malkeinu was composed in the first century and the Shema way before. I listened to the real way this was chanted, which brings tears to my eyes reminding of the yearning the Jew had for God which the Catholic also kept the Priestly blessing which has been used by Catholics since the first centuries AD.

And likewise when it comes to the primitive church and the heritage which gladly adopted me, that when it comes to partaking in the Communion, where St. Ignatius (110 A.D.) had no doubts that:

“[heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ.” (His Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6, 2)

Here is the primitive church, which the grasshopper was supposedly chasing after his entire life swarming threw the world looking for the greenest of grass, would render this chewing grasshopper “heretic”.

And how can one reinterpret this? If one is to believe that the primitive church did the Eucharist only ‘in remembrance’ why would only the heretics of these times object? After all, St. Ignatius should have said “because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the [symbolic] Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ“.

With Christianity, it is what it is. I did not become Christian so I can remain with my prejudices as Muslim where we believed that God can never be Triune or that the bread can never transubstantiate. The faith is what it is and I shall accept it to the way the recipe was made by the Almighty passed on to the first faithful who recorded what the faith was.

And if recipes are not crucial to point heresy, why would God make such an emphasis right in the beginning of Genesis where He accepted Abel’s sacrificial offering while He rejected Cain’s?

The whole of scripture is prophecy. Prophecy is simply one of the senses we need when we interpret in the ways the primitive church interpreted.

In Genesis was that first incident, God revealed a divide within the body of the faithful where Cain’s ground offering (Cain also believed in God, he spoke to him) was rejected since it symbolically did not include the future sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Abel’s was accepted because it did. This “divide” between “rebel” and “obedient” went all the way to the end of scripture. It was obedience that determined wheat from tares, sheep from goat, virgin will oil from virgin without … This is very clear when we read the Book of Hebrews,  where Abel because he was righteous accepted God’s prescription: “By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous.” (Hebrews 11:4)

Abel also cared and was meticulous to offer God the best offering.

Keep in mind that St. Ignatius was the student of Peter and other apostles. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.) stated: “He himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, ‘This is My Body’, who will dare any longer to doubt? And when he himself has affirmed and said, ‘This is My Blood’ who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood.” (5)

The Catholic Encyclopedia makes the case:

“Nothing is more solid than the UNANIMITY of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist for the first 1,500 years of the Church. The spontaneous uproar caused by men such as Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088) only attests the more to the unquestioned acceptance of the Real Presence. This UNANIMOUS belief of 1,500 years is itself an argument to its truth. For it is impossible that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, could leave the Church in error over a long period of time about one of the central doctrines of Christianity, according to the argument from prescription.” (6)

Catholics contend that Scripture sheds light to this belief. When we read: “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bare fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.” (John 15:4)

The grasshopper does not even know what is meant by “abide in” Jesus, and how He, Christ, abides in us.

It is here that not only transforms the bread into His body, but also can transform the little grasshopper to understand. This “abide” is explained in John 6:56: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Does Jesus “abide” because of only “remembrance” as in “I forgot and now because of this observance I am reminded”?

Therefore, Jesus abides in His followers and His followers abide in Him in a mystical fashion through partaking of Him in the Communion!


Protestant scholar Norman Geisler tries to find ways to say that Catholics and Orthodox do not agree on the Eucharist. He states: “The Eastern Orthodox Church, whose roots are at least as old as the Roman church, has always held a mystical view of Christ’s presence in the communion …” Geisler argues adding “but never the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation.” (7)

This is not true with Orthodoxy as defined by official Eastern councils agree with Rome.

We cannot escape the fact that the first Christians believed in a literal presense. Eric Svendsen, an evangelical, in an attempt to solve the issue, he in turn asserts: “the Catholic view of the Eucharist certainly cannot be considered a unanimous teaching of the Fathers. Yes, they did believe in a ‘real’ presence—
but then so do most Evangelicals believe in a ‘real’ presence’. That is not what is at issue. The question is, Is the ‘real’ presence a physical or a spiritual presence?” (8)

It is very difficult to deny even some real presence, even from amongst the view of grasshopper theology. Svendsen’s statement is a rabbit-trail and makes no sense.

The problem then is not the issue of the ‘presence’ but the issue of comprehending the mystery.

The concept of a physical presense is difficult for the Evangelical to accept, Svendsen in order to avoid historic fact argues that evangelicals do believe in the “real presense” of Christ in the bread even though evangelicals don’t. However, the difficulty of this concept rests on which interpretation one believes, Christ when He speaks of the bread says, “this is my body” (Luke 22:19).

To be (His literal Body) or not to be? That is the question.

One could ask; was God’s spirit (Ruach Hakodesh Shekina Glory) and the pillar of cloud and fire (Exodus 13:20-22) a symbolic or literal presense?

The Catholic and even the evangelical would say “yes”, the Shekinah is a Sign of the Presence of God who literally existed in the ancient Temple.

We all recognize an omnipresent God, but only doubt when it comes to the “bread of presence” which Christ even defined it as such (Mark 2:25-26)?

Is that a valid argument?

When it comes to the “presence” the evangelical says it was “only symbolic,” yet the Catholics said it was both “literal” and also “symbolic”.

But perhaps I can borrow from Reb Tevye the Jew his analogy when someone told him “He is right and he is right, they both can’t be right,” and Reb Tevye responded, “you are also right”.

They are all right, but only one is, the primitive church, was  completely right while the other is partially right.

But are we to live our Christian lives depending on half-baked truths instead of depending on the Bread of Life? Half truths is the reason why the Protestant cannot grasp what Théōsis means. He can grasp that God loved him enough to became man, yet there remained a rather frozen static quality to his intellectual and spiritual life as a Christian. The Catholic never said that he had all the answers and is why he calls it a “mystery”. The evangelical is right, that it is a tradition in remembrance “do this in remembrance of Me”. The Catholic agrees but adds; it was a combination of all, similar to what Israel had in the Shekina Glory; a spiritual presence manifested in a physical way within the pillar of cloud and fire—precisely because it is his bodily presence. In other words, the cloud was not God (as God is not molecules), but rather, God was in the cloud as the Holy Spirit Christ breathed was in His breath. With the Eucharist, according to his own words, “this is my body,” the host is Christ.

In the Old Testament, we have the figure; in the New, we have the fulfillment and the reality.

In the Old, we have the pillar of cloud and the Shekinah over the Ark; in the New, we have the incarnate God, with us, as he said, “always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).

If he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven after forty days (Luke 24:50–51), how can it be said that he is truly with us?

This is the function of the Eucharist, His body. The Eucharist is how He fulfills his word. The evangelical would object, His presense with us is through the Holy Spirit.

Both are right, yet only the Catholic would accept both analogies, yet the evangelical insists on allegorizing what Jesus said when He said, “this is my body.”

If we were in Israel during the time when the Shekina Glory was present and asked a Rabbi, “is God the cloud or is He the fire,” he would answer “no, he is in the cloud and in the fire”.

This is the mystery of mysteries, the mystery of the Incarnation, and the Eucharist is in fact an extension of the incarnation—God entering into his own creation in a mysterious and indescribable manner Catholics call it the “real presence” and refer to it also as a “sacramental presence,” but neither term describes it in such a way that we know what it is. This is why the word “Manna” means “what is it?” for no one can explain it for it was from heaven.

The same is true of the way we speak of gravity: rather than defining its substance (which we can’t do), we describe it by its effects.

Other questions arise: How is God present in the person of Christ? How is He present in that man—how is that man God incarnate? Just so, he is present in the Eucharist—because it is the same Christ, the same incarnate God, the same Person, and the same Flesh. Only now He is present in a different form, because his human form, now that it is glorified, has that capability, and because of the weakness of our humanity, we require such condescension. (9)

In his book The Church of Rome, William Webster tries to force many of the Fathers into his “symbolical” and “figurative” views (10) to only concede in the same book that the Fathers generally believed in the Real Presence. Webster concludes:

“From the beginning of the Church the Fathers generally expressed their belief in the Real Presence in the eucharist, in that they identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ …”  (11)

Without Church fahers, what are we left with then to confirm the Bible itself? Can we use circular reasoning when we ask; how do we know the canon we have is correct?

The scoffers believe that they can scoff, twist the word of God, slander and daily falsely accuse the true Catholic who continually makes mends with God and aids His Body (Matthew 25), of being devil, harlot and Antichrist. He then presents the false sacrifice of Cain, while saying that they are the one who can  enter? And if the Jew was naked in the Holocaust, it was the Catholic who died naked with him.The Catholic gave more lives fighting Nazism than the Jew and is without a holocaust memorial. This is why Protestant martyrology had no choice but to build on Catholic martyrology. Now all of the sudden the Catholic “unsaved” became “saved” while the heretic Catharis and Pogimils were “saved”?

This is my Jesus-style question. It is this question that made me Catholic. Why would I sit on the top branch that easily bends, instead of coming down to the trunk of the tree to stand on the solid ground of church history?


The Catholic church is like the old olive tree I see in Bethlehem that lives two thousand years and still lives. And even after it dies, our village was famed to use it to make the icons of Jesus, Mary and Joseph where their fragrance lives forever.

Such hatred, as I discovered pouring hundreds of hours in research to only find that the bulk of what is said against the Catholic Church was pure myth. “Aleister Crowley was consecrated a bishop in the Old Roman Catholic Church …” says Berean Publishers about the Christian hater Aleister Crowley in order to claim that the mass was satanic.

The key was to beware of anything calling itself “Berean” which became synonymous to “false history”. The Berean Call would quote, “Jesuit Peter de Rosa who wrote: “All the councils of the church from Nicaea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests…the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between [Matthew 16:18] and the pope. Not one of them applies ‘Thou art Peter’ to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants. Not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys….It was only in the year 1073 that Pope Gregory VII forbade Catholics to call anyone pope except the Bishop of Rome. Before then, many bishops were fondly addressed as ‘pope’ or ‘papa.’…The first Bishop of Rome was not Peter …Eusebius never once spoke of Peter as Bishop of Rome…etc.”

Yet Peter De Rosa himself was not Peter De Rosa. He was someone known as Neil Boyd. He was not a historian but an x-priest, novel writer and Professor of Metaphysics. (12) Also, Clement, Cyprian, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim the Syrian, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Damasus I, Pope Innocent I, Augustine,  Jerome and the entire Council of Ephesus declared Peter was given the keys. Why would one find seventy three million hits on Google fighting over Peter being or not being Pope while a meager three thousand hits on the verse where Jesus extends the office to the apostles to forgive sins? Yet countless evangelical writers fraudulently title Peter DeRosa as a “historian” and even a “devout catholic” which is blatantly false. What historian would write his book on the “dark side” of the Papacy with no documentation or footnotes? What DeRosa truly fought for was some of the very allegations he made regarding moral misconducts by certain popes. DeRosa advocated for the advancement of homosexuality and demands the Church approves contraception, divorce, and under certain conditions even abortion. He sees the papacy as the main obstacle to this, particularly Paul VI and John Paul II. His aim therefore was to discredit popes as thoroughly as possible so that nothing they have to say about these or other matters will be taken seriously again, yet at the same time advance the very sins some Catholic clergy have committed as his good cause. And I ask, how could supposed Christians vomit what homosexual advocates vomit while harping about the homosexual problems in the Catholic Church? (13)

But such a phenomenon is not just here, with using questionable characters like DeRosa. The bulk of so-called history used by anti-Catholic Evangelical authors is tainted with major myth created by non-historians peddled as historians and I dare anyone to challenge this. I had brought up this issue to the top Protestant apologist, James White, where he quickly tuck-tail and run (I have the emails). This is no small issue the Evangelicals never address. Name one who exposes that when it comes to the fabrications, giving titles to illegitimate historians, the case becomes clear, this is centuries old campaign against the Catholic Church by using pure fiction peddled as fact. And if in doubt, quickly search the claims made authors like Tim LaHaye, in a description reminiscent to the blood libel against Jews, writes that under the Spanish Inquisition:

“no fewer than 900,000 Protestants were put to death, in the Pope’s war for the extermination of the Waldenses. Think of monks and priests directing, with heartless cruelty and inhuman brutality, the work of torturing and burning alive innocent men and women; and doing it in the Name of Christ, by the direct order of the “Vicar of Christ.” (14)

Can LaHaye provide a reputable historian to back up this? Never.

These locusts, who never consumed the apricots in Gilo try to sell decorative apricots in Gilo made completely out of plastic. But when one begins to track such assertions  and how so wide spread there are becomes even more amazing. Even the numbers of supposed Christians the Catholics liquidated trumps anything Hitler has ever dreamed of accomplishing. The Christians supposedly killed by the hand of the popes extends to 68 million, 100 million, 120 million, and 150 million, depending on which false historian one examines. None of these numbers can be substantiated in the slightest and neither was the Papacy born in 606 A.D. as they claim.

For example, I examined Calvinist John MacArthur’s reference, John Dowling whom MacArthur claims is a “historian”, fact is, John Dowling was part of the whole fakery, “pastor Dowling” who held his pastorates in New York, Philadelphia and has no credentials in history. In the whole array of such inflated numbers, there exists no references to reputable historians; instead, they mostly quoted lying theologians: John Wesley was no historian but a theologian, Alexander Hislop was no historian, but was a Pastor of East Free Church of Arbroath in Scotland, Schmucker was not a historian, but was a Professor of Theology, William Craig Brownlee was no historian, but was a reverend and an American clergyman and professor of languages, Joseph Martin McCabe was no historian but an x-Catholic priest, Charles Buck was no historian, but was a reverend and author of Theological Dictionary, Vergerius was no historian, but a religious ‘reformer’, Thomas Armitage was no historian but a Protestant theologian, George Bourne was no historian, but a pastor, Cushing B. Hassell was no historian but a simple writer, Dr. M. Geddes was no historian but a Chaplain, John B. Wilder was no historian but another simple writer, Taylor Bunch was no historian, but was a Prophecy buff, Robert Bellarmine was no historian but a theologian, Nathaniel Crouch (pseud. Robert Burton) was no historian, but another simple writer, Henry Southwell not a historian but  was a reverend, John Wylie was no historian but a minister of the Free Church of Scotland, J. M. Carroll was no historian but a Southern Baptist minister, Avro Manhattan was no historian but a British writer.

Then we have Charles Chiniquy who was not a historian, but a Canadian x-Catholic priest who was twice suspended from his priestly ministry (for moral turpitude); R. W. Thompson, was not a historian but a politician; John William Bowden was not a historian but theologian; Walter j. Veith is not a historian or a “world acclaimed international lecturer” but a zoologist; Frances L. Carroll; was not a historian but simply a Jehovah’s Witness and a housewife.

All that millions of victims by the hand of the Catholics was funneled into a guy named David A. Plaisted who is not a historian but a professor in the Department of Computer Science and then the numbers got trumped up by a Jehovah’s Witness housewife.

Such is the type of references used by evangelical authors when they need to exaggerate historic accounts.

So when one takes everything from these that was disseminated throughout decades and decades of fiction-selling, and multiply how far it went, how many shared with others which trickled down in a pyramid from the top stone to the bottom, one can see how millions upon millions spew exorcism type vomit which would take all Catholic nuns and priests to clean up where they would have to abandon all their ecclesiastical duties and observances and never get done.

It is no wonder that the woman who brought forth the man child in Revelation was hated by the Red Dragon who spews out of his mouth a flood. While such flood is literal persecution of the saints from Islam, the other sense would fit that slander is what God also had in mind since Christ Himself warned “blessed are you when they say all sorts of slander against you” (Matthew 5:11).

The alarming issue is that this type of vomit is not made by secularists who are more crafty to sift fact from fiction, while adding their poisonous propaganda, but that the whole fiction part is made by Protestant publications. One can ask any historian to peruse, spending one day, history from the Catholic perspective,  and one day history from the Protestant perspective, in order to sift fact from fiction. When it comes to historic fiction, the Protestant is the ace winner. This hatred needs exorcism since the hatred of Catholics today is sill the only accepted prejudice.

Even if one uses the argument that there were “genuine issues raised by the Reformers” that caused the split, to these I ask my thousandth Jesus-style question: show us once where Christ honored splits? Even in the New Testament, it records only Pharisees who were ‘saved’, never Sadducees or Samaritans, and Christ said to do what they (the Pharisees) tell you to do (not Samaritans of Sadducees) but do not do what they (the Pharisees) do.

Is this obedience to Jesus?

In fact, the most accurate of critics against popes and Vatican has been Catholics. In other words, when I see the Vatican sin, do I split or stand up and fight to be counted, expose, correct and restore?

Restore. Restore what the locusts have eaten.

This is obedience to Jesus.

(1) E. W. Bullinger, in commenting on Matthew 26:26, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pages 738-741

(2) Arnesen argues: “First of all appeal has been made to the work of anthropologists such as Mercea Eliade. One of the ideas put out by Eliade and others is that worship has as its chief aim the recovery of the primordial events enshrined in the ‘myth’ of the people. To recover in reality the primordial time of their beginnings there was the need to re-live, to re-enact the myth in a regular, cyclic rhythm. Most particularly, by the sacred meal the corporate life of the community was expressed and the primordial myth recovered through ritual re-enactment. ‘In religion as in magic, the periodic recurrence of anything signifies primarily that a mythical time is made present and then used indefinitely. Every ritual has the character of happening now, at this very moment. The time of the event that the ritual commemorates or re-enacts is made present, “re-presented” so to speak, however far back it may have been in ordinary reckoning.’ We shall see that this approach has little or nothing to do with the presuppositions of the New Testament.” Then one read a refutation here and see that such does not add up to the evidence.

(3) Thomas Constable. F. F Bruce. R Kent Hughes

(4) “that while the outward appearances of bread and wine remain {the taste, touch, smell and looks}, their inward realities or substance has become the living Christ. Because Jesus is truly presentBody, Blood, Soul and Divinity— we adore the Eucharist with profound reverence.”

(5) Catechetical Lectues: Mystagogic 4, 22, 1* “Do not regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the sense suggest to you other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this manner by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.” *Catechetical Lectues: Mystagogic 4,22,6

(6) New Catholic Encyclopedia, under “Eucharist (as Sacrament)”, volume 5, page 604, emphasis added

(7) Geisler/MacKenzie, page 263, although in a footnote the authors admit the Orthodox “permit” transubstantiation

(8) Svendsen, page 251, emphasis author

(9) (See how God has thought of everything! *Thanks to The Coming Home Network Internations.*)

(10) The Church of Rome at the Bar of History by William Webster, page 119

(11) The Church of Rome at the Bar of History by William Webster, page 117, Italics mine



(14) LaHaye, Revelation Unveiled