On national television, Benny Hinn described a Catholic communion service in Amarillo in which he took part. He stated that he suddenly felt numb, then felt someone step in front of him. The sensation became so real that he then reached out and touched a robe which had:

“...a silky feeling, a beautiful softness to the robe...The next thing I was feeling was actually the form of a body, the shape of a body. And my body...went totally numb....And God really gave me a revelation that night, that when we partake communion, it’s not just communion, Paul [Crouch]. We are partaking Christ Jesus himself. He did not say, ‘Take, eat, this represents my body.’ He said, 'This is my body, broken for you...’ When you partake communion, you’re partaking Christ, and that heals your body. When you partake Jesus how can you stay weak?...sick?...And so tonight, as we partake communion, we're not partaking bread. We’re partaking what He said we would be partaking of: ‘This is my body’” (The Confusing World of Benny Hinn, Fisher & Goedelman, 132-133).

This kind of deception prepetrated by such a prominent charismatic leader causes me great concern. What is more alarming, is that the people in the audience did not reject such a doctrine. Thus the reason for this article. I am equally concerned by the demonic apparitions of “Mary” promoting the “true presence” in the Eucharist. “Fr.” Stephano Gobbi has been receiving messages from “Mary” since 1973. Here are a few examples:

"Because in the Eucharist Jesus Christ is really present [sic]. He remains ever with you, and this presence of His will becomes increasingly stronger, will shine over the earth like a sun and will mark the beginning of a New Era. The coming of the glorious reign of Christ will coincide with the greatest splendor of the Eucharist. Christ will restore His glorious reign in the universal triumph of His Eucharistic reign, which will unfold in all its power and will have the capacity to change hearts, souls, individuals, families, society and the very structure of the world. When He will have restored His Eucharistic reign, Jesus will lead you to take joy in this habitual presence of His, which you will feel in a new and extraordinary way and which will lead you to the experience of a second, renewed and more beautiful earthly paradise"(August 21, 1987) (Call of the Ages, Petrisko, 467).

"Expose once again the Eucharistic Jesus on the altar for hours of solemn and public adoration and reparation, because the rise of the New Era will lead to a general reflowering of the EUCHARISTIC CULT in all the Church. In fact, the coming of the glorious reign of Christ will coincide with the greatest splendor of His Eucharistic reign among you. The Eucharistic Jesus will release all His power of love, which will transform souls, the Church and all humanity. Thus, the Eucharist becomes a sign of Jesus who, still today, loves you to the end, because He is leading you to the end of these times of yours, to introduce you into the New Era of these times of yours, to introduce you into the new era of holiness and of grace, toward which you are all journeying, and which will begin at the moment when Jesus will have restored His glorious reign in your midst" (April 12, 1990) (Call of the Ages, Petrisko, 467-468).

“This New Era will coincide with the greatest Triumph of the Eucharistic Jesus” (Feb.26, 1991) (Call of the Ages, Petrisko, 462).

Seeing this “reflowering of the Eucharistic cult”, I feel it necessary to once again write on this subject. According to “Fr.” Albert J. Hebert in his book Prophecies, “Mary” revealed to a Yugoslavian visionary named Julka:

“During the Elevation of the Most Holy Body of Christ, the great and exalted Mother of God appeared in the center of the altar . She was behind the chalice but slightly higher up in the air. The Blessed Virgin looked into the chalice. Then she said: ‘I am present at the Sacrifice!’ From above came the voice of our Saviour saying: ‘I am alive in My Sacrifice on the altar!” (Call of the Ages, 308)

According to this same visionary, Jesus told her:

“The presence of My Mother at My altar, when My Sacrifice is offered to Me, and to My Father and to Our Spirit, means that My Mother, the Martyr, was totally united with Me in soul and body in My Sacrifice for the Redemption of souls, As My Mother’s place on earth was next to Me, so she is also next to Me in Heaven” (Call of the Ages, 308).

Of course, Luke 8:20 proves that Mary was not always by Jesus’ side.

“And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.”

Before we look at the Catholic Eucharist, let’s take a look at the practices of the pagan religions of that time, which Roman Catholicism has incorporated into several of her doctrines.

“In nearly all the Mysteries an agape, or sacramental meal, preceeded initiation. At Eleusis the sacrifice to Demeter and Kore was followed by a banquet on the flesh of the victims. Tertullian records a coquorum delectus at the Dionysiac Apaturia and Attic Mysteries. In the Mysteries of Mithra ‘bread and a cup of water are offered in the rites of initiation accompanied by certain explanations,’ to which Pliny refers in magicis cenis initiaverat. Extant symbola attest the sacramental meal in the cult of the Great Mother. The inscription of Andania and one from Messenia ‘prove the same for Demeter, while for the Samothracian Mysteries an inscription from Tomi relates that the priest ‘shall break and offer the food and pour out the cup to the mystae.’ But in what sense did the participant of the sacramental meal become...of the god ? Was he conceived as feeding on the god by eating his totem or sacrifice, that is, by the entry of the deity into the believer in a magical fashion ? That there was a firm belief, in the earlier stages of religion, of such participation in the god by eating him in a sacramental meal cannot be questioned. In the Thracian- Dionysiac Mysteries, e.g., the celebrants by such a meal obtain a share in the divine life of the god, and so are called by his name, Saboa, Sabazioa. And in the Dionysus-Zagreus cult the communicants rushed madly upon the sacrificial animal, tore it to pieces and ate it raw, believing that the god was resident in the offering. Cumont believes that the original significance of the eating of a sacred animal in the Phrygian cults was that ‘IT WAS BELIVED THAT THUS THERE TOOK PLACE AN IDENTIFICATION WITH THE GOD HIMSELF, TOGETHER WITH A PARTICIPATION IN HIS SUBSTANCE AND QUALITIES,’ and that in certain mystic meals of the Syrian cult the priests and the initiates, by eating the fish sacred to Atargatis, considered themselves to be devouring the life of the deity” (The Mystery Religions, Angus,129-130) (Emphasis mine).

The pagans did indeed believe by devouring their deity by mystical means, his qualities then became theirs. Now let’s look at the teachings of Rome and compare them with the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

“1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 384-85) (Emphasis mine).

The above quote seems to lend credence to Rome’s claim that they have been true to the literal interpretation. Yet the following quote does not agree with the first one. According to Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 383:

“In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist ‘the body and blood, TOGETHER with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially contained’” (Emphasis mine).

First they claim that at the consecration of the mass, the bread is changed into the “body” of Christ. But in the second quote, Rome not only combined the blood with the bread, but added “soul and divinity” as well. ROME’S LIE #1: Jesus held up the BREAD and said, “This is my body, blood, soul and divinity”. ROME’S LIE #2: Jesus held up the CUP and said, “This is my body, blood, soul and divinity”. Jesus NEVER told his disciples that the bread or the cup contained his “soul and divinity”. Neither did our Lord say that the bread contained the wine (i.e. the flesh contains the blood), yet, The Sacramental Life of the Church , by Otten, S. J., (77) says: "...the same blood that trickled down from the cross on Calvary, is there [in the Eucharist] pulsating with life and energy.” So the blood must have re-entered Jesus if it is the same blood that poured out at the cross and is present in the flesh of the Eucharist. That clearly means that Catholics are eating a pre-crucified Christ as well as a pre-glorified Christ. Let’s take a close look at the LITERAL words of Jesus without adding or taking from the EXACT words of our Lord and Savior.

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you my Father's kingdom.” (Matt.26:26–29 ) (Emphasis mine)

We can see plainly in Matthew that Jesus calls the bread “his body”. There is no mention of the blood, soul or spirit in His words. In verse 29, Jesus says that He will “drink it new”. By Rome’s standard, this would mean that Jesus was planning to “drink” His own blood? Our Lord also said “fruit of the vine” instead of “blood”, right after He blessed it. Why, if “transubstantiation” had already taken place? I’ve heard it argued by Catholic apologists that Jesus is the vine; therefore it was correct to call the blood “fruit of the vine”. But how does one get wine out of the “fruit” of the vine? One must crush the grape. Deut.32:14 speaks of the Israelites drinking the “blood of the grape”. This would again prove that the blood had to be shed (Heb.9:22) and cannot be presented as still contained in the body as Rome claims. Let’s look at ALL the other accounts of the last supper and see if any of them, at any time, represented the two elements as one in the same.

“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: THIS IS MY BODY. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, THIS IS MY BLOOD of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” (Mk.14:22-25)

We see that Mark’s account also depicts the bread and the cup as two separate elements. Luke’s gospel states:

“And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, this is my body which is GIVEN for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.” (Luke 22:15 –20)

Again, we see the separation of body and blood in the bread and cup. Not only did Jesus never combine the two elements of bread and wine, but He NEVER even mentions “soul and divinity”. Rome ADDED to the words of Jesus Christ. (Rev.22:18-19) John’s account of the last supper makes no mention of Jesus holding up the cup or the bread. However Rome has used the discourse of John 6 as a proof text that indeed the flesh and blood and soul and divinity are to be “eaten”. We will look at these verses later to see if indeed it supports Rome’s “transubstantiation” theory, but for now, I would like to go through every reference to the last supper in the New Testament to see if Jesus told us to “eat Him alive, with the blood still in Him, along with His soul and divinity”.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (Emphasis mine) (1 Cor.10:16)

Again, we see that Paul separated the two elements stating that the “cup” was the “communion of the blood” and the “bread” was the “communion of the body”. How then can Rome still maintain that the bread contains the “blood”? This is in direct opposition to the word of God! And this comes from a system that claims they are true to the “literal” interpretation? Paul expounds in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 on the last supper:

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed TOOK BREAD: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH IS BROKEN FOR YOU: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also HE TOOK THE CUP, when he had supped, saying, THIS CUP IS THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MY BLOOD: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye EAT THIS BREAD, and DRINK THIS CUP, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall EAT THIS BREAD, AND DRINK THIS CUP of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the BODY AND BLOOD of the Lord.”

We again find no evidence that we were to “eat the soul and divinity”, nor is there any proof that to eat the bread was to also partake in the cup. One must do BOTH...EAT AND DRINK...because the bread was the “body...that was broken”….and the cup was the “blood...that was shed”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsists. Christ is present whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ” (p.385, #1377).

This means, that the act of “transubstantiation” takes place at the “moment of the consecration”. Let’s examine the “words of consecration” said by the priest at that “moment”. We will let Rome speak for herself:

“Vain is every attempt to explain, on merely historical grounds, the signification of this high liturgical act which is the very culmination of the Mass. The Church says nothing of herself; but, hiding herself behind the Person of the Christ, uses no words, employs no gestures, but His own. The Consecration and the Supper are one. The Consecration reproduces and extends the mystic memorial of the Last Supper when Jesus, who was facing betrayal and death, freely offered his Body and His Blood for the redemption of mankind...Christ, therefore, is seen to be the author of the form, the actions, the very words of the Consecration. In this moment, the priest quite literally becomes Christ Himself: his own personality is blotted out; it is absorbed in that of the everlasting Priest who is, at one time, the offered victim and the supreme officiant. For this reason it is Our Lord's own movements, as reported by the Gospel which determine what the priest does...." (This Is The Mass, Daniel-Rops, Sheen, Darsh and Hawthorn, 100) (Emphasis mine).

Not only does the priest believe he is no longer himself, but LITERALLY Christ , he further claims to speak only the words of Jesus. This means that when Jesus held up the bread and said “This is my body”, Rome says the same words, but, by her doctrine of transubstantiation, added the words ‘blood, soul and divinity’. How then, did Rome stay true to the literal? In the “Catholic Answers” tract, The Mass, we read:

“The Greek word for ‘body’ in John 6 is sarx, which can only mean physical flesh, and the word for ‘eat’ translates as ‘gnaws’ or ‘chews.’ This is certainly not the language of metaphor.”

The first problem we have here is that the word “body” does not appear in John 6. The word “flesh” is used...not “body”. The second problem is that “Catholic Answers” deceives the reader when giving the definition of the Greek word sarx. According to The Strong’s Concordance (#4561), sarx means:

“...flesh (AS STRIPPED OF THE SKIN) i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extens.) the body (AS OPPOSED TO THE SOUL [or spirit]….”

This proves without a shadow of doubt that Rome is incorrect when she says that the body contains the “blood, soul and divinity”, as sarx speaks of the flesh “stripped of the skin...as opposed to the soul [or spirit]”. Another point “Catholic Answers” make in their tract is concerning the word “eat”. They emphatically insist the word means “to chew” and they are correct. Why then did Rome forbid those who partook in the Eucharist to “chew” it? Priest and author George M. Searle teaches how to take the Eucharist correctly (the word “God” was added to show the absurdity of calling a piece of bread “God”):

"It is very difficult for the priest to give Communion [God] to people holding their mouths shut without striking it [God] against their teeth, in which case it is very probable that it [God] may be broken, or at any rate that some particle of it [God] may be knocked off. Don't follow their bad example then, but hold your mouth wide open, and your tongue well out; then the priest can lay the Communion [God] on it without fear, and without danger of accident. When it [God] is laid on your tongue, withdraw your tongue immediately, and then close your mouth, being careful not to do so till the tongue is inside; then swallow it [God] as soon as possible. It [God] must not be allowed to melt in the mouth; if it [God] does, you do not receive the Sacrament [God] at all. If, however it [God] should adhere to the roof of the mouth, so that it [God] cannot immediately be swallowed, do not be disturbed, but loosen it [God] with your tongue; you will pretty certainly be able to do this before it [God] is all dissolved. Do not on any account, touch it [God] with your fingers. AND TAKE CARE NOT TO CHEW IT [God], OR TOUCH IT [God] WITH YOUR TEETH. Having swallowed it [God] you have now received; and now is the time, more than any other, for fervent prayer, when the Real Presence of our Lord is with you.This Real Presence only remains while the Blessed Sacrament [God] still continues undestroyed, which will only be for a few minutes at most, for it [God] will usually be acted on more quickly by the stomach than by the mouth; but even after it [God] has passed away, prayer and thanksgiving for what has been received should be continued for some time...if possible, for as much as a quarter of an hour" (How To Become A Catholic, 83-85) (Emphasis added).

Here we have the one priest forbidding people to “chew” while “Catholic Answers” demand that Protestants take the literal meaning of John 6 and “chew” [eat] Jesus! What confusion! If one looks up the word “chew” in the dictionary, they may feel differently about taking the words literally instead of spiritually: “1. To crush or grind with the teeth; masticate, to injure. 2. To meditate upon; consider carefully.”

What would be the point of Jesus commanding us to “drink” His blood if it were already contained in the bread? Never did Jesus tell us to “eat His blood”...He always said “drink”. This fact did not go unnoticed by Rome’s own popes. Pope Gelasius I (492-496), in a letter addressed to some bishops said:

"We have ascertained that certain persons having received a portion of the sacred body alone abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred blood. Let such persons...either receive the sacrament in its entirety, or be repelled from the entire sacrament, because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege" (Roman Catholicism, 188).

The decree of pope Urban II, in 1095, and pope Paschal II in 1118, also condemned the practice of giving the bread only in the sacrament. At least three popes disagreed with the teachings of today's church! Yet, in the 30 years of taking the Eucharist, I was NEVER ONCE offered the cup to drink. Nonetheless, Rome continues to pretend that she has been faithful to the “literal interpretation”. The truth is, she cannot honestly say that the last supper she practices is identical with the biblical account of the last supper, and therefore is a counterfeit (“to imitate or copy close especially with the intent to deceive”).

Let’s take a close look at John 6, and see if there is anything written to support the adding of the blood, soul and divinity into the bread.

“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye EAT THE FLESH of the Son of man, AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, ye have no life in you. Whoso EATETH my flesh, and DRINKETH my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my FLESH IS MEAT indeed, AND my BLOOD IS DRINK indeed. He that EATETH my flesh, AND DRINKETH my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56) (Emphasis mine)

Notice in each verse, Jesus says “eat his flesh” AND “drink his blood”, but there is not one word of “soul and divinity”. Even the apostles said “this is a hard SAYING”:

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)

Feeding our flesh profits nothing, but to feed our spirit would mean eternal life. That’s why His words were life. Eating a piece of bread can do nothing to feed the spirit in man. But to believe in Jesus Christ, a man has eternal life.

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn. 6:40)

By Rebecca A. Sexton