Answering the C.A. Tracts: Christ in the Eucharist

From the Catholic Answers website:

Here at Catholic Answers, one of the most effective methods for countering attacks and clearing up misconceptions about the Catholic Faith have been our tracts. They have been around since the beginning of the apostolate and have resulted in many thousands of conversions. These tracts provide a real point of contact for someone in discovering the truths of the Catholic Faith.

There is a continuous onslaught of Catholics asking the C.A. apologist to explain why something they were told by a Protestant is not true. Catholic Answers biggest fear is that Catholics will be drawn away from the Catholic Church by listening to Protestants, and the tracts on their website play an important role in making sure that does not happen. So wouldn’t it be interesting if Catholics start asking their apologists to answer challenges to their tracts?

If the tracts are the go-to source for clearing up misconceptions, where will they tell them to go when the tracts themselves are shown to be deceitful? Now I’m not talking about misunderstanding or opposing interpretations I’m talking about very intentional well-crafted deceit. For example…

The tract, “Christ in the Eucharist” has some pretty glaring examples of dishonesty. In the beginning of the tract, they claim that they will be examining the last half of John chapter six. They launch into verse 30 and then immediately jump to verse 51. The tract never mentions or alludes to verses 31-50. The only verses examined were 30 & 51-65, hardly an examination of the second half of the chapter.

Immediately one should recognize that the tract is avoiding context. Political campaigns often use the tactic of out-of-context snippets to deceitfully influence the minds of the constituents. The same is true of this tract. For the sake of conciseness and keeping on point, I would not expect that each and every verse be examined. But to skip over 21 verses in the heart of the discourse as though it has no relevance to the topic is a blatant example of hiding the context.

When you read those verses, it becomes apparent why they don’t bring them up. Jesus reiterates over and over in the discourse that those who believe in Him will have eternal life. They do not want Catholics questioning the authority of the RCC based on the words of Jesus. But more to the point, they don’t want their readers to learn crucial information regarding the Jews and disciples to whom Jesus was speaking.

The tract talks about the disciples who walked away because of the harshness of Jesus’ words. It then rationalizes that they understood Jesus literally and correctly; otherwise, why would Jesus not stop them and explain the misunderstanding? It references Matthew 16 to demonstrate that Jesus always explained things to His disciples when there was confusion. So they ask, why not here? If the reader is familiar with the context of the discourse, they would know the answer to that question.

From the context we know that Jesus had followers who did not believe in Him. Their motivation was to find out if He might be the promised Messiah. In verse two we read: “Then a great multitude followed Him, because they saw His signs which He performed on those who were diseased.” Then after Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish, we read this: “Then those men, when they had seen the sign that Jesus did, said, ‘This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.’ Therefore, when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone.” (V14-15) When they caught up to Him in Capernaum, Jesus said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.”

He proceeded to then explain that the work of God is to believe in Him whom God set His seal. In verse 36 & 37 He made this explicit statement to them: “But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.”

The tract tries to rationalize that the departing disciples left because they had a problem with His doctrine of eating flesh and drinking blood. But the context reveals to us that they had no interest in Jesus’ true teachings. The Scriptural context portrays them as false disciples who never believed in Jesus, but the Catholic tract portrays them as true disciples who developed a doctrinal issue they could not overcome. The Catholic teaching is clearly a contradiction to the Scriptural account.

The issue of dishonesty doesn’t end there; in fact, it gets worse. The tract moves into a defense using the early church…

Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

As much as I want to resist calling the author a liar, it’s simply illogical to assume that he or she was not aware of the facts when he or she wrote the tract. In fact, it’s obvious that he or she did understand the facts and chose to hide them.

The statement clearly conveys that throughout history the church has always believed what the Catholic Church teaches today about Christ in the eucharist. But that is not what the statement actually says. It’s a carefully crafted statement designed to convey an idea, while deliberately avoiding any explicit claim to its validity. That’s how you know it’s a lie.

The claim is that there is no record that implies anyone doubted the Catholic interpretation. It does not say there is any evidence that supports the Catholic interpretation. So if the interpretation did not exist, there could be no record of anyone doubting it. The fact that there were numerous heresies in the early church era, and no record of anyone doubting the interpretation, lends much more to the idea that the interpretation did not exist. This is especially true when considering the Gnostic view that all matter, including flesh, was evil.

The next sentence continues in the same vein – a continuation of an argument from silence. “There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed.” Again, if there was no literal interpretation there would be no document opposing it. Well, actually, it just so happens there was a literal interpretation and there is a document that opposes it.

The literal interpretation was expressed by the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking in John chapter six: “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” The document opposing the interpretation comes from a third century presbyter named, Tertullian. Here is what he said regarding the Jews’ literal interpretation…

“He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits nothing,”— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.

Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: The flesh profits nothing. Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it profits nothing itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit profits, for it imparts life. The flesh profits nothing, for it is subject to death.” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh: 37)

Tertullian presents a sharp contrast to the claim made by the Catholic tract. Here we have a very explicit rebuttal to a literal interpretation of John 6. Tertullian said they supposed that Jesus had really and literally enjoined on them to eat His flesh, which is exactly what the Catholic tract claims. But then Tertullian says that Jesus corrected them by saying It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, the flesh profits nothing. The Catholic tract denies that Jesus corrected them and dismisses the notion which Tertullian affirms; that is, it is the Spirit and Word that gives life.

So what did Jesus mean by “The flesh profits nothing”? If you look for that answer in the tract you will find something pretty incredible. Here it is.

<blockquote In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

Does this have a familiar ring to it? It sounds an awful lot like when they tell us to ignore our senses and believe by faith that the eucharistic bread is the literal body and blood of Christ. In fact, that is exactly what they are saying. Here the notion of transubstantiation is being forced on the words of Jesus and it makes absolutely no sense. Christians can reasonably debate whether Jesus was referring to His flesh or ours, but contorting His word to fit a doctrine that finds no basis in the context of the account is just absurd.

The Jews in the wilderness ate the manna and died. Catholics eat what they believe to be the literal body and blood of Christ and die. Why do they die? Because, as Tertullian put it, the flesh profits nothing and is subject to death. We do not gain eternal life by what we physically consume, but rather by what we spiritually consume. Jesus told the woman at the well, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” Likewise in John 6, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” … “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”

Tertullian obviously understood that the words, “eat My flesh and drink My blood” were metaphors for believing in Jesus through His word, and abiding in Him through the Holy Spirit. “…to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.”

The tract asserts no document exists – when it clearly does. How about the fact that no document exists that indicates anyone had a problem with Tertullian’s assessment of John 6? And with regards to the claim that no document exists where only the metaphorical is accepted, how about Clement of Alexandria’s work, Paedagogus “The Instructor”? In reference to Jesus calling His blood “true drink,” Clement said this:

For those who are full-grown are said to drink, babes to suck. For my blood, says the Lord, is true drink. In saying, therefore, I have given you milk to drink, has he not indicated the knowledge of the truth, the perfect gladness in the Word, who is the milk? (Paedagogus 1:6)

The blood as true drink is purely metaphorical to Clement as he relates it directly to Paul’s reprimand of the Corinthians’ lack of spiritual growth. If his purely metaphorical teaching isn’t clear enough here, Clement makes it perfectly clear just a short time later…

“And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock? And to this meaning we may secondly accommodate the expression, I have given you milk to drink, and not given you food, for you are not yet able, regarding the meat not as something different from the milk, but the same in substance. For the very same Word is fluid and mild as milk, or solid and compact as meat. And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise. (ibid)”

You cannot get more non-literal than to say “distinctly by metaphor.” Had those been my words, Catholics would scorn me, but Clement’s teachings were met with nothing but adoration in his time.

So in the fantasy world of Catholic apologetics, historical document they don’t want you to see don’t exist. But in the real world they do exist, and what they contain destroys the so-called sacred traditions of Roman Catholicism.

A tract laden with deceptively crafted statements and blatantly baseless assertions cannot possibly be motivated by truth. The only motivation for producing a tract like this is to keep Catholics, with sincere questions about their faith, from leaving the Roman Catholic Church.

“Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” (Jhn. 6:27)


70 Responses to Answering the C.A. Tracts: Christ in the Eucharist

  1. Jordan says:

    After rereading my comments on my last reply, I realized that there are statements that I should had double checked as there are parts of my previous post and possibly others that could confuse, so I will admit carelessness on my part because of my neglect to check before posting. For these errors, I apologize to Mike and Brian.

    That said, I would like to take this post to clarify and correct where I made mistakes which made my point appear to come out differently.

    >Now of course your argument is trying to show the real presence is not reasonably assumed from their writings. And I am showing it is not.
    What I should had said was “And I am showing how this assumption of yours(Brian) is not the case

    >None of these also changed the fact that any clarifications on Christianity or its tenets would be relayed to him in that Apology.
    This sentence is redundant to my argument in that paragraph and should not be a rebuttal at all.

    > But keeping in mind the context of that statement, which is so plainly in reference to the consecrated bread and wine received. He is connecting how these are seen and the Incarnation is related to them
    Should be written more clearly as: But keep in mind that the context of that statement, which is so plainly expressed, is in reference to the consecrated bread and wine received. He is connecting how these are seen and the Incarnation is related to them.

    >Just because the cults of Mithras dont have any notion of the deity present in their food, does it entail that Justin’s Eucharist must then by extension not have any eucharistic presence of Christ in the food. 
    Should be: The cults of Mithras having no notion of the deity present in their food, does not necessarily entail that Justin’s Eucharist must then by extension not have any eucharistic presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine

    >Stating that the Eucharist is mysterious and cannot be comprehended by reason is also no argument against saying it is unreasonable to deduce a real presence in the elements after consecration.
    Should be: Stating that the Eucharist is mysterious and cannot be comprehended by reason is also no argument FOR saying it is unreasonable to deduce a real presence in the elements after consecration. Especially in Justin given HOW he expressed it which to an outsider would be seen as parallel to Christ being Incarnated.

    >So by that line of thinking, Philo for instance is saying since God is incomprehensible and beyond what reason can tell us, it is unreasonable for him to suppose that God exists.
    Should be: So by that line of thinking, when Philo for instance states that since God is incomprehensible and beyond what reason can tell us, we have to consider him saying it is unreasonable for him to believe in God’s existence.

    I see now that I should check twice to ensure that my comments come out as clear as it should be and not be mistaken.


  2. Jordan,

    You are apologizing for essentially neglecting to proofread and make clarifications before posting. That is helpful, but it’s not the real problem here. The real problem came out in your previous post where you pretentiously revealed that you are here to correct me. You said that “I see correction as false and misrepresentative.”

    Are the edits in you latest post intended to clarify what you are saying so that I might then accept your correction of my misguided understanding? You might think you sit mighty high on that horse of yours, but to me you’re just another academic making a fool of himself. Just about every response of yours contains false accusations about what I said, and personal jabs regarding my character and ability to comprehend what I read. The truth is I think you lack the proper foundation to accurately interpret the writings of the early church. You seem to have the academics down, but from what I have experienced here you clearly lack a Christian (Christ-centered) foundation.

    If you read the early works like you read my comments it might go a long way in explaining why you think you see what isn’t really there. In the case of you repeatedly accusing me of misrepresenting Kelly by saying I stated he believed the early fathers taught a spiritual presence, all you had to do was go back and re-read what I said. I said nothing of the kind. I was expressing my opinion when I said, “The realist language was purely spiritual.” It was obvious to anyone who read it. And if you take my later comments about Kelly, there is just no way to logically arrive at the conclusion you did.

    I don’t know, Jordan, maybe you just need to mature a bit more. You are very combative and easily offended. I’m going to leave our discussion here and say good bye. Maybe for a while you should put down the scholarly books and pick up the Bible. Read it with the intension of knowing God and let Him draw you to Christ through faith. Learn what it means to truly be in Christ and He in you. If you are willing.

    Don’t expect any further comments of yours to be approved unless Mike wants to continue his discussion with you. Thank you for the effort you put into this discussion, I know your heart was in it. God bless!


  3. Mike says:

    Well put Brian. I’ll move on from Jordon as well. Thanks for the interaction Jordon. I wish you well, and I hope you come to know Christ.


  4. Jesse says:

    I already know that some of this will be repetition, and that the discussion is over, but here are some details I wanted to add:

    Following is an interesting excerpt from second century Christian apologist Tatian’s Address to the Greeks:

    “It is not we who eat human flesh — they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis.” (Chapter 25. Boastings and Quarrels of the Philosophers)

    This excerpt from Church Historian Philip Schaff’s work called History of the Church, Volume II, paragraph 69, is pertinent here:

    “The doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, not coming into special discussion, remained indefinite and obscure [during the period from 100-325 AD]. The ancient church made more account of the worthy participation of the ordinance than of the logical apprehension of it. She looked upon it as the holiest mystery of Christian worship, and accordingly, celebrated it with the deepest devotion, without inquiring into the mode of Christ’s presence, nor into the relation of the sensible signs to his flesh and blood. It is unhistorical to carry any of the later theories back into this age; although it has been done frequently in the apologetic and polemic discussion of this subject.”

    An excerpt from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online:

    “The Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries show us what is practically our present Roman Mass. How did the service change from the one to the other? It is one of the chief difficulties in the history of liturgy. During the last few years, especially, all manner of solutions and combinations have been proposed. We will first note some points that are certain, that may serve as landmarks in an investigation…Justin gives us the fullest Liturgical description of any Father of the first three centuries (Apol. I, lxv, lxvi, quoted and discussed in LITURGY). He describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated at Rome in the middle of the second century; his account is the necessary point of departure, one end of a chain whose intermediate links are hidden. We have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries. This is the mysterious time where conjecture may, and does, run riot. By the fifth century we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change. At this time we have the fragment in Pseudo-Ambrose, “De sacramentis” (about 400. Cf. P.L., XVI, 443), and the letter of Pope Innocent I (401-17) to Decentius of Eugubium (P.L., XX, 553). In these documents we see that the Roman Liturgy is said in Latin and has already become in essence the rite we still use.”

    Notes by Christian apologist William Webster on the beginning of the historic development of Roman Catholic Eucharist theology:

    “Men began to see the priest and Christian ministry as being parallel to priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament. And though the analogy had been set forth by Fathers earlier, they always emphasized that New Testament ministry had displaced the carnal sacrifices of Judaism with the spiritual sacrifices of the Church on the basis of the completed sacrifice of Christ. But now the analogy lost its spiritual character. More and more Christianity begins to lose its true spirituality to materializing and externalizing influences. With a materialistic view of the elements in the eucharist there now began to develop through the influence of Cyprian, with his view of the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood, the concept of the eucharist as a literal sacrifice, even though Cyprian himself still retains to a large degree the idea that this sacrifice is a commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice.”

    An excerpt from Dr. Francis Nigel Lee’s Fifty-Five These Against Transubstantiation:

    “Even since A.D. 831, many Roman Catholics still opposed such transubstantiation. So: Ratramnus, Berengarius, John Scotus Eriguena, Rabanus Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Christian Druthmar, Florus Magister, Eusebius Bruno (Bishop of Angers), Frollant (Bishop of Senlis), and Elfric. Also, according to the famous RC Cardinal Bellarmine in his De Sacramento Eucharistea (111:5 and 4 dII q.6 art. 1,2 and q. 3 art. 1,2 and I:5) – even the celebrated Cardinal Cameracensus said: “Transubstantiation cannot be proved from Holy Writ …. To this Cardinal Roffensis, Cardinal Cajetan and also Scotus all concur.” Indeed, the RC scholars Gabriel, Nicolus, Cusanus, Tapper, Hessel and others all present the “Protestant” interpretation of John 6:54. See Dr. P.G. Logan’s Ph.D. dissertation The History and Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Sydney, 1994, pp. 84f.”

    Jordan made mention of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians…most probably referring to chapters ten and eleven…here’s my answer to that:

    “The context of this passage pertains more to appropriate conduct and application of discernment in worship services than having a correct view on the Eucharist. The purpose and meaning, not the substance, of the communion elements are being discussed in 1 Corinthians 10-11. The communion that the pagans had with idols was also very real, yet there is no evidence suggesting that their offerings were transubstantiated. The Apostle Paul stated that Jesus Christ was the Rock (1 Corinthians 10:3-4), yet He never underwent a process of literal petrification. If eating causes one to “participate” in the sacrifice itself, then why would the Apostle Paul tell his audience that it is fine for them eat the meat offered to idols? Even granting that this text makes mention of the Eucharist, it does not prove transubstantiation. There is not even the slightest hint of an ordained ministerial priesthood in this context.”

    Taken from:


  5. Mike says:

    Very interesting points Jesse. Thanks.


  6. Jesse says:

    Hi Folks,

    I hope you had a Merry Christmas, and that all is all well.

    Anyway, I was wondering what you thought of this article from Catholic Answers:

    I was curious what you thought of it, especially their appeal to the Greek term “logizomai”:

    A second way to meet this challenge is to point out that the Greek word for reckon, logizomai, actually serves the Catholic view of justification. Paul was well aware of this term and used it quite frequently. And when he did so, he used it in the sense of making a mental evaluation or calculation about some thing having a certain quality.

    Consider, for example, Romans 4:8, where Paul quotes Psalm 32:2: “Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon [Greek: logizomai] his sin.” David wrote these words in the context of having confessed his abominable sins of murder and adultery, for which he was forgiven. He writes in verse five of the same psalm, “I acknowledged my sin to thee, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord”; then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin.” For David, this was why God didn’t reckon his sin.

    But God’s forgiveness of David’s sins was not merely a legal declaration without some existential effect on David. To the contrary, David describes God’s forgiveness of his sins as being made “clean” and “whiter than snow” (51:7). And herein lies the key to God no longer reckoning David’s sin: the objective guilt of those sins had been removed. God’s reckoning was an evaluation that correctly corresponded to the objective reality of that which was being reckoned.

    There are other passages that fit the same pattern. For example, in Romans 8:18 Paul “considers” [logizomai] that our current sufferings are not worth comparing with our glory that is to be revealed in heaven. Paul’s mental evaluation of our present sufferings compared to our glory in heaven matches the objective reality about the two. In Romans 9:8, Paul “reckons” [logizomai] Abraham’s spiritual children as God’s children. Paul’s evaluation about Abraham’s spiritual children corresponds to what they really are: God’s children.

    1 Corinthians 4:1 is another example. There, Paul says that Christians should “regard” [logizomai] Paul as a servant of Christ and a steward of the mysteries of God. Paul really is a servant of Christ and a steward of the mysteries of God, and thus his mental evaluation corresponded with reality. In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul “thinks” [logizomai] himself a full-fledged apostle (2 Cor. 11:5). Such an evaluation matches up with what Paul really is: a full-fledged apostle.

    Notice that in each of the above examples a reckoning according to reality takes place—a mental evaluation that correctly corresponds to reality. Never does the reckoning in these verses suggest a mere declaration that is not intended to match up to the reality. There are some passages in Scripture where people “reckon” something in a way that doesn’t match the true nature of the thing being reckoned (see Mark 15:28; Rom. 2:3). But in these cases the reckoning is seen as flawed.”


  7. Jesse says:

    Well, it looks like Jordan Cooper is up to his shenanigans once again:

    I made my second response on my own blog (on the article that he’s attacking).


  8. Academics, like Jordan, are confounded by Scripture so they avoid it at all costs. Faith is your shield and Scripture is your sward. These are kryptonite to Jordan.


  9. Stephen Haws says:

    Hello, made a video reply of sorts. BTW, I forgot to mention but you can consider the Lutheran, Pastor Sullivan, as a Tertullian.


  10. Stephen,

    If you do get into apologetics I do hope you will take the time to do your research. Your doctrine of transubstantiation is not only impossible to explain, it’s also impossible to associate with the early church, particularly the ante-Nicene era.

    You will need to explain how it is that Irenaeus worked at length to develop the foundation for the creation aspect of his eucharistic defense. This was crucial in his defense of the faith against Gnosticism. Irenaeus argued that the eucharist has an earthly element which he identifies as the first fruits of the creation.

    Creation, to the Gnostics, was evil and the work of a lesser god. Irenaeus argued that if the creation was not God’s, then God is coveted of an other’s possession. At length he argued that the creation is of God, then he brought it back to the eucharist saying that the eucharist establishes our opinion. It was the Gnostics who claimed that a change of substance occurred in the bread, not the Christians. It was necessary for them to separate Jesus’ humanity from His divine in their celebration of the eucharist. This is exactly what Irenaeus argued against.

    Remarkably, the Catholic Church has reinstituted the Gnostic ritual by separating God’s creation from the eucharist. What was once a gathering to offer the sacrifice of praise and giving of thanks in memory of His sacrifice, has become a gathering to perpetually keep Christ on the cross.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: