Stanek Sunday extra: Eucharist flash mob
From the National Catholic Register, June 24:
So, technically, this doesn’t quite qualify as a flash mob, but I love it nonetheless. The video features two Capuchin Franciscan friars (I’m guessing that they could be from this friary) who bring the body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist right into the center of Preston, England’s marketplace. While one friar recites a litany of Christ’s titles, the other friar holds up Christ in the monstrance. The monk who is speaking into the amplifier repeatedly says, “Come and kneel before Him now,” and it’s truly beautiful to see people in the midst of their shopping, stopping to kneel before the Lord. Others laugh, while still others stand with puzzled looks on their faces.
I love it, too! And I love how the reading friar describes Jesus in every book of the Bible. Beautiful. The NCRegister has transcribed it, fyi…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ5aYoSr3Hg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Wow! What a beautiful video! I absolutely love it! I heard about it on Relevant Radio the other day and meant to find it. Thank you for finding it for me!
Jill, are you sure you’re not a closet Catholic?! :-) You know you are welcome anytime!
Xoxo
Beautiful!!
“Come and kneel before Him now.”
Amen! Thank you for posting this!
To those (people) who do not recognize Jesus:
You can meet Him, face-to-face, on the altar at a Eucharistic Adoration Chapel. Some chapels are open 24/7. Everyone is welcome! God bless.
Taking Him to the streets!!! Today is the Feast of Corpus Christi – our parish and many throughout the world, will be taking the Most Holy Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, to the streets.
Oh come, let us adore Him!
Jill – thank you for posting this.
Thank you, Jill, for posting this incredible video! Those wonderful, brave monks! I’d love to see this done all over America.
Come and kneel before Him now. AMEN!
Some may laugh now. That is their option. None will laugh later. “EVERY knee shall bend, in the heavens, on the earth, and under the earth. And every tongue proclaim to the Glory of God the Father, JESUS CHRIST IS LORD!” – Philippians 2:10-11
I’ll be joining a Corpus Christi Procession this evening with my hand-held photo-remembrance of “Fetus Corpus Christi” (Matthew 25: 40, 45)
http://www.abortionno.org/Store/images/signs.jpg
http://www.orlandodiocese.org/en/component/k2/item/8851-corpus-christi-procession
This brought tears to my eyes!! Thank you so much for sharing!
I’m glad you all like it! :)
Brought tears to my eyes and healing to my heart.
Beautiful.
I had thought that Mrs. Stanek was a Protestant. Although we share the same Judeo-Christian morality, there are unreconcilable differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Protestants have historically understood that Roman Catholics effectually deny the gospel, and since Roman Catholic doctrine has only become more settled, there is still every reason for Protestants to regard the Roman Catholic Church as a false church and the pope as an antichrist.
Below is a question and answer from the Heidelberg Catechism, which was written in Germany, Martin Luther’s homeland, halfway through the sixteenth century (c. 1563).
What difference is there between the Lord’s supper and the papal mass?
ANSWER
The Lord’s supper testifies to us, first, that we have complete forgiveness of all our sins through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself accomplished on the cross once for all; and, second, that through the Holy Spirit we are grafted into Christ, who with His true body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and this is where He wants to be worshipped. But the mass teaches, first, that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the suffering of Christ unless He is still offered for them daily by the priests; and, second, that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine, and there is to be worshipped. Therefore the mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.
You can come home now, Jill.
Jon, everything asserted in that Catechism in regard to Catholic teaching is false. It was false in the sixteenth century and it is false now. Go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you want to find out what Catholics really believe. Here are a couple of passages for starters:
1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover,the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice. . .
1364 When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, which is made present; the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross always remains really present.
(The punctuation of the original is messed up in the online version; here is the Latin of the last part, which I corrected it from: “Cum Ecclesia Eucharistiam celebrat, memor est Christi Paschatis, quod praesens fit: sacrificium quod Christus semel pro semper obtulit in cruce, semper permanet actuale.”)
from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.html
So the Mass is the denial of Christ’s sacrifice, huh? Not according to the Catholic Church.
Another question: If Christ is really present, if the bread and wine are indeed his body and blood, (as he promised us in John 6), then how is He not to be worshipped there?
Catholic also understand Christ to be present in heaven, eternally offering his sacrifice to the Father, as we and the priest offer it as well.
I’m not trying to blame you for these mis-statements – you are simply depending on those who were ignorant in the sixteenth century; but you really need to learn the golden rule of any correct scholarship – go to the original sources.
Jon, I agree with you. I don’t even know why Jill had to post this. Honestly I think it is idolatry. Christ is NOT in a little piece of bread. He said to take communion in REMEMBRANCE of Him. He NEVER stated that He was IN the BREAD.
But whatever. Catholics believe what they believe and I as a born-again Christian believe the Bible.
Why does Jill post stuff like this that has NOTHING to do with abortion and will only start some divisive thread where pro-life Catholics and born-again Christians debate each other. what is the point of this then?
Thanks Jill for alienating your non-Catholic readers. Really.
Lori, quite the contrary, you and other Roman Catholics continue to promulgate the heresies the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism were fighting against. Read Jill’s post, in which the Catholic Register is quoted as follows:
“The monk who is speaking into the amplifier repeatedly says, “Come and kneel before Him now,” and it’s truly beautiful to see people in the midst of their shopping, stopping to kneel before the Lord.”
Roman Catholics obviously worship that piece of bread, and I’ve heard that they don’t even drink wine with it because of fear of spilling and wasting it. If this was good theology, then I too would believe it. It isn’t, however; it depends on a literal reading of Christ’s obviously figurative words. Is His body also literally a door, for example? Why not?
Anyway, whatever the Roman Catholic apologists might say about Christ’s sacrifice only having been made once, they effectively deny it with the mass. Again, read the words of Jill’s source: “Two Capuchin Franciscan friars… bring the body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist right into the center of Preston, England’s marketplace.” He’s still being offered there; according to these friars, He’s still on the altar.
Since I’m not a secular humanist, I don’t believe that the mass is harmless hocus pocus; quite the contrary, the mass is an accursed idolatry.
I’m not trying to blame you for your mis-statements –-you are simply depending on those who were already leading you astray in the sixteenth century; but you really need to learn the golden rule of any correct ecclesiastical scholarship–go to the original source, the Word of God, the Bible.
Sydney, I don’t believe Jill did anything to stir up controversy. Jon however, did, by calling Catholic beliefs “accursed idolatry.” Or at least he cited the words of someone who did. And you repeated his charge. So you agree with calling other Christians idolators? I don’t know of anything more likely to cause a “divisive thread” than that. As for myself, I only answered to correct a persistent error about what Catholics believe.
You are right, Jesus never stated he was IN the bread. He stated he WAS the bread: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:54-55). “Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” (Luke 19:7). These are the words of Jesus, the words of the Bible,, make of them what you will.
Catholics believe that the Eucharist is indeed a memorial of Chrst’s passion, but it is also a great deal more, as I have explained above. But that is all I will say in order not to hijack the thread further.
Jill,
What a beautiful post for the Feast of Corpus Christi. Thank you.
Sydney,
You are quite correct. Jesus never said He was in a piece of bread. His exact words as He broke the bread were, “This IS my body.” He didn’t say, “This symbolizes my body.” I’m not getting into a Eucharistic debate with you here. However, Sydney, your strident response is quite out of line. You don’t see the Catholics lining up to denounce Protestants for being Protestant.
Jill showed good grace today, all the more because she is not a Catholic. Your response was uncalled for. Shame on you for your display of primitive religious bigotry on a major Feast Day of the Church for Catholics. You don’t need to like or agree with it, but you are the noisy gong and crashing cymbal by your lack of love (See 1 Corinthians 13)
Luther tossed out the Greek-language sources, thinking that the Hebrew texts were the original. Come to find out, the Greek ones were written earlier and were more reliable.
Just one of many mistakes Luther made. That, and Christ established a Church, not a book, and the book was made what it is by that same Church, the Catholic Church.
:)
“Roman Catholics obviously worship that piece of bread, and I’ve heard that they don’t even drink wine with it because of fear of spilling and wasting it.”
Oh you heard? You’re not sure? You don’t really know?
In fact, you are wrong; Catholics receive the blood of Christ under the appearance of wine at Mass.
My whole point with my original post is why depend on what someone else says about Catholic teaching or practice, when you can go right to the authoritative sources of Catholic teaching? As for the Bible, it is authoritative for Catholics as well as Protestants, and I have already quoted it several times.
There are a million more things I could say, but as I said, I’ve no desire to hijack this thread. I would invite you though to take back your slander against Catholics.
Sydney – you are so correct – Christ is NOT a little piece of bread. No one in the Catholic Church would ever make that claim. The Eucharist (means thanksgiving) is not a piece of bread – it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. Before it is consecrated, true, it is a piece of bread, but after it is consecrated, by the power of the Holy Spirit it is His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, as He gave to all of us at the Last Supper, the first Eucharist.
You may wish to read John 6:48-68 – the discourse of the Bread of Life. Many left Christ when He spoke – and still many leave. Christ said to partake of the Eucharist in remembrance of Him – not that the bread was the remembrance, but the Eucharist. There is a huge difference – although sometimes it is hard to understand – but where faith is, there are often these difficult things.
Martin Luther was a man who had many valid points – however, he did not work through the points with those in his authority – he decided, to go rogue. He did the Church a favor in some regards as in the selling of indulgences, which was wrong and that was corrected, but it is sad that he left the Church and out of his disobedience, many thousands of churches, each with their own understanding of the bible came to be. To the end Martin Luther was devoted to Our Blessed Mother, the Mother of Christ.
I too had many biases and prejudices that I had been raised with, and when I looked at what the Church really taught, not what I thought they taught I found that she made a lot of sense.
I also invite all of you to study how the canons of the bible were pulled together – you may be surprised that it was from the councils of the Catholic Church.Her authority was what gave you what you read as the bible today, minus the deuteroconical books, which King James put into the back of the bible and in the late 19th century, those books were eventually removed from the Protestant bibles, but if you can get an old, old bible, you will be able to see those books, or just pick up a Catholic bible – they are in between the Old and New Testaments.
Twenty three years a Catholic – and still, the Church has much to teach me…
It is not a them versus us, Sydney and Jon. We, all of us, are loved by God – and through His Son, Jesus Christ, we are granted a foretaste of heaven here on earth in the Eucharist.
Lori replied to me, “In fact, you are wrong; Catholics receive the blood of Christ under the appearance of wine at Mass.”
So, in fact, it appears that I am right: Roman Catholics do not actually drink any wine. And that’s what I was saying. I said, “I’ve heard that they don’t even drink wine with [the bread] because of fear of spilling and wasting it.”
Well Lori, well Gerard, it is divisive in that you all line up to gush gush gush but if anyone disagrees and says so then it will become divisive. And I stand by what I said. It is WRONG. It is idolatry. I realize you don’t see it that way but I stand by what I said.
and btw, Gerard. Btw, Lori, I am NOT a protestant. I am not protesting your church. You can stop calling me one. Kay? Thanks! Also, you might want to check your Bible references Lori as Luke 19:7 is about Zaccheus. Oops!
OK, one more thing. When Jesus said in John 6:54-55 “My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink” all his disciples started to leave him. They were freaked out by his doctrine. And you know what? He never attempted to call them back, never pointed out “Hey, I was just speaking figuratively!” Why? Well, it’s obvious they understood his words and there was nothing more to be said. There was nothing to explain, because he had said it all. They couldn’t stand it and they couldn’t believe it. Quite different from what happened with his door and sheepgate imagery.
Far be it from me to minimize the scandal the Eucharist was and still is. There are altogether too many who can’t accept it. Secular humanists can’t accept it — that I understand. What is holding you, a fellow Christian back? I pray it’s only ignorance and misunderstanding, not malice. As I said, I believe you should take back your slander about “idolatry” among Catholics. It does not belong here. Statements like this do not belong anywhere among Christians.
Jon….So, in fact, it appears that I am right: Roman Catholics do not actually drink any wine. And that’s what I was saying. I said, “I’ve heard that they don’t even drink wine with [the bread] because of fear of spilling and wasting it.”
I am laughing here – I am Roman Catholic and I drink WINE!!! I do not drink wine during the sacrifice of the Mass – but I do drink wine.
Sydney, please point out to me where I called you a Protestant. I did use the word in a general sense though not addressed to you; and I used it because it is the term generally used. I don’t think you have any reason to be angry at me.
By the way, if we are going to adopt that as our standard, you have just as good as called me an idolator — twice. Do you want to reconsider?
Gerard Nadal said, “However, Sydney, your strident response is quite out of line. You don’t see the Catholics lining up to denounce Protestants for being Protestant.”
No, Gerard. Sydney’s response was not out of line. She was being a Protestant. The Roman Catholics would take us back to the more materialistic religion of Old Testament religion (and do worse than that, engaging in idolatry). They deny the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, the spiritual character of worship, the priesthood of every believer, and–most of all–the authority of the Word of God. Sola Scriptura! Sola Gratia! Sola Fides!
If anything is out of line here, Jill’s post itself is. I had thought she was a Protestant.
Jon,
I don’t waste my time trying to argue with bigotry and ignorance. Perhaps if you wish a civilized discussion where you explore what Catholics believe by talking to real Catholics who could spin you in circles with their erudition in scripture, you might learn a thing or two.
Thanks for dropping by to vomit.
Get well soon.
Lee said, “I do not drink wine during the sacrifice of the Mass – but I do drink wine.”
But that’s what I was saying; look at the context, please. So again, I was right in what I said there.
Jon,
You forget to call us the “Whore of Babylon”.
Gerard, I do not need to talk to “real Catholics who could spin [me] in circles with their erudition in scripture.” The fact is that I believe the pastor in my Protestant church. He’s concerned with opening the Bible and explaining it properly, having been trained in a Bible-believing seminary. And he’s faithfully done so. Spare me your experts!
Martin Luther found that the Roman Catholic Church in his time was only concerned with hiding the Word of God from uneducated people. He opened it up, nailing the 95 theses to the church door as a public announcement. Bible translation was a Protestant endeavour; Roman Catholics only began translation of the Scriptures because the Protestants had already enabled “the common plow boy to read the Word of God in his own language” (my paraphrase of the goals of John Wycliffe, the Lollards, and many others).
So I can read the Bible for myself, thank you very much, and while I’m easily led astray by such wolves as Roman Catholics like yourself, I trust the shepherds in my church.
Jon – I was trying to lighten this up a bit – I pray that you will accept that in the spirit in which it was written. No, we do not drink wine during the Mass – obviously – and you boldly pronounced that Roman Catholics do not drink wine. I looked over at my wine glass, with its Cab/Sav in it and had to say – yes, indeed, I do!!!
God did not tell us to worship a book – and it is kind of funny that you are using the official language of the Catholic Church to make a point about scripture only. Long before the bible came, Christ came – about three hundred years (I am writing about the new testament now). So, the first Christians, in your way of thinking, were not Christians because they did not have the bible to read?
It is all good Jon, I, as a Catholic am full of the Holy Spirit – and cannot deny it as it is part of the Trinity – which, by the way, is not a word in the bible –
Gerard, I’ve already called the pope an antichrist. But I don’t know whether he is The Antichrist.
Jon – which pope are you referring to? And how many antichrists are you thinking of?
Gerard said to me, “Thanks for dropping by to vomit. Get well soon.”
Getting well soon depends on Jill. She wrote the post which made me vomit.
You know what Gerard? You know what I notice with you? Whenever anyone disagrees with you their words are “vomit” or whatever. You are smarter than anyone on this site and I will gladly acknowledge that. But you are a bit of a bully on here when it suits you. “Get well soon” I could say the same for you. Why are you so threatened by someone else’s thoughts that disagree with yours? Jon has a valid opinion whether you agree or not. I know it insults your faith and I’m sorry for that but it is still an opinion Jon has a right to share. This is not the “feel good about Catholicism club” over at Jill’s!
I realize I am stepping on toes by throwing in my two cents. I totally get it. And I totally get that you believe what you believe and you are going to defend your faith. I would expect no less. This is not about malice towards Catholics. GOOD GRIEF! I am married to one and my whole extended family is Catholic.
I was Catholic myself at one point. And when I went through RCIA I argued every single doctrine against Scripture and the priests HAD NO ANSWERS. NO ANSWERS. Now I know that not all Catholic doctrine goes against scripture but the ones that do… then you all follow tradition. And that is WRONG.
The original church was NOT Catholic. And it was not “protestant”. It was just THE church. A few hundred years after Christ is when you started to see “traditions” creeping in. Traditions in and of themselves are not wrong but when they contradict God’s Word there is a problem. The “protestants” were trying to do away with all the man-made traditions and trying to get back to the basics of the Word of God. Catholic doctrine teaches that the wine and bread BECOME the body and blood of Christ. This wasn’t even doctrine till 1215 AD. Christ was not speaking literally in John 6:54. Christ also said “I am the vine and ye are the branches”. Was he literally saying he was a vine? Come on!
I don’t hate any single Catholic. I admire Catholics for their zeal for pro-life ministry. But I am not going to stand there and ooh and aaah over something that is not scriptural and act like it is.
I just had two dear friends killed this week in a terrible fiery car crash. I am emotional and I am angry and I am hurt. ETERNITY IS REAL! Life is short. There is no time to be wrong on God’s Word or the fate of our souls. My husband is freaked out. He doesn’t know where he is going to spend eternity. He has no hope. No solace. He was raised a faithful Catholic and he doesn’t know ONE THING about God or His Word! He is TERRIFIED of death.
I know where I am spending eternity. Not because I am a good person because I am not. I am a mean, spiteful, hateful, selfish person. A SINNER. I deserve HELL. But because I took God up on His offer to come to Him through His Son ALONE, not by my works, or my denomination or anything but just come to Him as I am and fall on Him for mercy…. He has forgiven me and covered my sins with His blood and I am redeemed. I have hope. I have blessed assurance.
Thats all I want to say. I don’t want to argue with you all. Good night.
Jon,
You have no idea of how ignorant you sound. Catholics are Bible-believing too. We wrote the New Testament. We’re the one’s who determined which books were scripture, and which were not.
When I want to learn about Jews, I talk with Rabbis, and not skinheads.
When I want to Learn about Hinduism, I don’t talk with Pakistanis, I talk with Hindus.
When I want to learn about a Protestant denomination, I sit and talk with pastors from that denomination, not some rival.
But what you learned about Catholics was from some bigot in a collar who doesn’t even know that it was the Catholic Church that gave us the Bible. Way to go sport.
Sydney,
There’s plenty of folks here who are way smarter than I. So let’s not play that game.
As for people disagreeing with me, I choose the big guns in response to their attacks, which are usually ad hominem attacks. If people wish to discuss the issues, I’m okay with that. But I notice that those who draw first blood cry the hardest when they get their nose bloodied by me in return.
Good Night.
Sydney – I am so sorry to hear of your loss.
During your RCIA classes, it seems strange to me that your priest had no answers – perhaps he had no answers that satisfied your definition of what Christianity means. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ – He instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. I do not know where you come to your information that the early Church did not celebrate and believe in this. Nothing in the Church contradicts scripture.
Your husband has no need to be freaked out over where he will spend eternity if he frequents the sacraments of reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist at least once a year and attends Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. Do not be fearful for him, either, Sydney.
I can sense great anger in your posts, Sydney – I pray you peace and condolences in your loss.
I am not playing any game with you Gerard. I meant it as an honest compliment. Debate the facts then Gerard. Debate and refute Jon with Scripture. Wishing him to get well? What? Did you run out of REAL ammunition?
And no, you Catholics did NOT “write the new testament”.
Sydney, I’m very sorry to hear of the deaths of those close to you. Please understand that I am not angry with you. I knew you were Catholic and I know why you left, as you have mentioned it before. I understand why you are angry at the Church. You are or you wouldn’t talk the way you do. But believe me, you completely misunderstand Catholic teaching. We can disagree without anger, but it is still wrong to call your fellow Christians pagan names.
I sincerely hope that God grants you his peace and that you feel better soon.
Lee, please show me where in the Bible it says that to have salvation you must frequent the sacrament of reconciliation and the eucharist (we have communion too you know. It is not a foreign concept to me… but we know it is just bread and wine and not the body and blood of Christ) and that you must attend mass and remember holy days? The thief on the cross had none of these things. He lived a wicked life but yet Christ said “today thou shalt be with Me in paradise” All the thief had was his repentant heart.
Thank you for your condolences. I should not debate online when I am emotionally raw like this.
I do fear for my husband. The Bible says “Ye must be born again”. What exactly does that mean then?
Also, Lee, the priest had no answers. Meaning, when I brought up Scripture that contradicted what they were teaching he could not explain it. He had no reasons other than that was the tradition handed down for a thousand years and more.
I am well schooled in the Bible. I had 13 years of private Christian school education. I went to a Christian college. I have been taught the Bible, the history of the Bible and the history of the church well. I did not know much about Catholicism until I went to RCIA. And what they taught me did not add up with what I know the Bible says. Again, not everything, but there were doctrines. And when I brought them up the priest waved his hand like “oh well” and spoke about tradition.
And why is it that I can never find two Catholics who can explain things clearly and agree the same? In my own family alone if I asked about salvation there would be 40 different responses. Go down the list of doctrines and its the same. Not one of them agree or know the Catholic church’s teachings. 40 different opinions yet all were taught that their opinion was the correct one from their various parishes. So all this talk about the unity of the Catholic church… have not seen that in my own life.
Furthermore, (sorry, ONE more post!) my husband said that being Catholic is like a club he is in because of his ethnicity (he is Italian). Who says that? They all have this “I was baptized and confirmed… I took my first communion… I’m good!” ALL OF THEM. Every single one in my family thinks this way.
I absolutely think some Catholics are going to heaven. Some are going to hell. Some “protestants” are going to heaven, some are going to hell. Cause the denomination is not what is important. Its not the things WE do that save us. Its not our works etc… Its what CHRIST did that saves us. It is a gift we accept. It is about our repentant heart before the Father. I’ve seen it in Catholics and I’ve seen it in my own church. That is all I want to say. I am seriously done now. Good night.
Sydney – to be born again is to have a conversion to Christ. As simple and as difficult as that. Check out John 3:5 – “born of water and spirit” (which those who are not Catholic often see as born again).
In the bible, which was pulled together at the councils of the Catholic Church, Christ told his disciples when He breathed the Holy Spirit on them, that those who sins they forgave would be loosed in heaven and those who sins they did not forgive, would be bound in heaven. I am not an apologist – but here is a link to better understand - http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a135.htm.
You are so correct – the thief on the cross did not frequent the sacraments – for the gates of heaven had not yet been opened and the Church that Christ founded had not yet been founded. It was founded after His death and resurrection …
One of the things about the thief on the cross is that we truly, can never underestimate God’s desire for Mercy and Repentance.
I do not know why you left the Church, Sydney – and this is not the place to discuss it, but I am always available to talk to you, without judgement, without anger, regarding her teachings. Perhaps the moderators can share my email addy with you,
Sydney,
First, my prayers for your friends and for your sorrow. You’re right. It’s no time to argue when you are raw.
As for Jon, there’s no rational discussion to be had with the anti-Christ crew. Go back over the thread and see who smeared whom. He’s not looking for a discussion.
As for your other questions, there has been a fifty year period of catechetical anarchy in the Church. If you rely on the garden variety Catholic, you’re out of luck. All of our teaching is deeply rooted in scripture, and you can see the references in the documents.
Going to bed. Email me and we can talk there.
Look, I want to know what the Catholic church teaches. I actually have the Catholic catechism book… somewhere.
If the Catholics on here can recommend a good book that clearly explains the church’s positions and doctrines I will read it.
Think on it and let me know I will read it.
Btw, thank you for the condolences Lori and Gerard. I apologize for my testiness. This week has just hurt me like crazy. I am offering an explanation not an excuse. I will talk to you guys later.
Sydney, I’m so sorry for your loss of your dear friends. Take care of yourself, and God bless.
Jon,
It seems that some Protestant preachers spend more time talking about those “danged Catholics” than they do Jesus. That doesn’t seem right. (I’d bet some of them have never even met a Catholic.) LOL.
One other thing – they’ve most likely never been to a Catholic mass, because if they had, they’d know that it’s “chock full” of scripture – Old and New Testaments. Good night, and God bless.
Sydney, I agree with Gerald. The lack of understanding of Catholic teaching even among priests and official RCIA teachers has been a scandal these past few decades. Many Catholics today simply know nothing and can’t defend their faith.
I was fortunate to be educated in my faith before the real post-Vatican II craziness started. Mostly I received my teaching from my wonderful parents (who were well educated in the faith), from good Catholic books, and – this is really going to make your jaw drop — from Scripture! Yes, Catholics do read the Bible. And then there are all the papal encyclicals, the Councils, the writings of the saints -there is a great abundance of riches there. I hope you will find them someday. You might start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, at the web address I gave above. It explains just about everything. EVen if you don’t return to the Cnurch, you will at least know more about what Catholics really believe.
I will pray for both you and your husband.
Sydney.
Two Books for you.
1. Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. by Dr. Brant Pitre
2. The Lamb’s Supper. by Dr. Scott Hahn
Their command of the scriptures is unparalleled.
Sydney – you just don’t hang around the right Catholics. Those who do not know their faith are cheating themselves, no matter what church they attend.
You are so correct, it is through faith alone that we are saved and that is what the Church has always taught.
I am impressed by your Christian education and your knowledge of the bible. Have you read any of the early Church Fathers? Have you studied the history of the Catholic Church from their view?
God Bless – praying you peace
Oops, Sydney, we must have posted at about the same time — I wrote the whole of my post above before I even read your question. I would indeed recommend the Catechism online (that way you won’t have to go looking for the book).
There are some wonderful good easy books by Mark Shea – one is By What Authority – it’s about how as a non-denominational Evangelical who was a bible-only believer, he discovered what Catholics actually mean by tradition, where it is in the Bible, especially St. Paul — and why evangelicals and others have it too! He is a great, easy and really funny writer.
He has anothr book on the Eucharist and a whole trilogy on Mary. He also has a blog. I trust his wrtings; he is very knowledgeable.
Then there are the tracts and online articles at Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com). They can answer just about everything succinctly. I like listening to their radio broadcasts while I’m working on my computer. They have a call-in radio show and answer questions about the Catholic faith. They also reccomend books. It’s quite addictive.
You probably won’t read this until tomorrow. Till then, sleep well.
Sydney -
Salvation is from the Jews … by Roy Schoeman…a MUST read
Mark Shea – a fellow convert has a blog and has written some wonderful books – here is his website – http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/.
I also agree with Gerard’s book recommendations.
Protestant denominations are dying off quite rapidly. Most of this has to do with the fact that Christ did not write a book, He founded a Church. This Church, the Catholic Church, compiled the Scriptures. Luther, some 1500 years later and as an ordained Catholic priest, took on the renaissance zeal for looking to original sources, mostly because he could not understand Aquinas. In his error, he believed the Hebrew sources to be more “original” than the Greek, which much to his and his followers chagrin, was not the case. His entire worldview was based on errors and mistakes and perpetuated by a hubris little known to mankind. He opened the door to the fall of Christendom, the division of Christ’s Body, the soul-destroying Enlightenment, secular humanism, contraception, divorce, abortion, and (ultimately) atheism.
It was a job well-done by Luther, if his goal was to destroy western civilization.
The bottom line is this, however: The Scriptures need exegesis. The trouble with protestantism, and any communion outside the Church, is that everyone has a right to be an expert on interpretation. This has led to some 30,000 or so churches led by individuals who think they know what the Scriptures say, and everyone else is wrong. In contrast, we have the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, founded by Christ who promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against Her, and who has been entrusted as the authority and interpreter of the library that is the Bible, which she compiled.
The difference is simple, yet hard for many to get past. Magisterium of the self vs. Magisterium of the Church. Either everyone is right and everyone is wrong at the same time (and thus it is all meaningless) or the Church is right and everyone else is wrong. I’ll go with Christ and His Church. :)
Thanks for this beautiful video, Jill!
I noticed that the two most innocent in the crowd were the most willing to get the closest to Jesus (and they are probably the least educated about Catholic/Protestant differences).
Sydney, I am thinking of and praying for you and your family during this difficult time.
Gerard, of the people here promoting the Roman Catholic viewpoint, I find you the least rational. And that’s something you accused me of. You said I wasn’t “looking for a discussion” and “there’s no rational discussion to be had” with me. However, if you examine each of my previous comments, I think you’ll see that they take seriously what you and the others have said, and they are in fact quite rational. It’s you who’s made the gratuitous insults.
Actually, when I came across this post, I wasn’t looking for a discussion. I knew there would be one, but I couldn’t let Jill’s apparent apostacy (on the institution and meaning of the Lord’s supper) to go unchallenged. Her tacit approval of something Protestants consider idolatry hurts her testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation from sin to be found in Him.
There are others here–Lori Pieper, for example–who have at least considered what I was saying and responded to it. She refers to some passages, e.g. John 6, which I would have to examine in context. I would probably also have to look up my church’s exegesis. There is a right way to handle the Word of truth, and I obviously don’t look to the Roman Catholic Church to get it. She’s too invested in herself and the pope to truly care about the glory of the one they claim to represent, i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ. Romanists make too much of our mother, the Church, and too little of her bridegroom, the Word made flesh.
Those two friars were breaking the Second Commandment (or First Commandment, if you’re a Roman Catholic).
General Comments: Wow. I honestly don’t think Jill meant to start an argument between Catholics and Protestants. My experience of Jill (and I am a Catholic) is that while she is not Catholic, she respects the Catholic faith and thinks our desire for God’s will to be done is the same kind of desire Protestants have. I once had trouble with something Jill said regarding her beliefs, but I sat on the phone with Dr. Gerard and he very kindly and carefully explained everything to me. While I’m not sure if I fully understand it, it’s my belief that Jill honestly did not mean to start a debate.
To Sydney: I’m sorry you all are going through what you’re going through. It’s clear your husband has not been properly instructed in the Catholic Faith, which, unfortunately has happened. I will pray for you all.
Back to general comments: Jesus said “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat of My body and drink of My blood you shall not have life within you.” Generally in the Gospels Jesus didn’t say “Amen, Amen” unless he was emphasizing a point. If Jesus had meant it as symbolic or wasn’t truly meaning His exact body and blood He would’ve stopped the Jews who left and told them He was being symbolic because Jesus was always very clear about what was what. If you notice, instead He keeps asserting His position that a person must eat His body and Blood. Through the Holy Spirit and Transubstantiation the bread and wine become just that. The priest repeats the words Jesus said at the Last Supper during the Mass: “Take and eat. This is my body. Take and drink. This is my blood.” So the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine, but rather the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. (Jesus revealed Himself to the disciples on the Road to Emmaus through the Breaking of the Bread. In John chapter 6 He keeps asserting the point. Obviously it’s important otherwise it wouldn’t keep popping up like that).
Resources: Scott Hahn is an excellent resource and while I haven’t read “The Lamb’s Supper” I’ve heard good things. I’ve read “Rome Sweet Home” by Scott & Kimberly Hahn. I think Jeff Cavins explains the Eucharist in a great way in “I’m NOT Being Fed!” Patrick Madrid has some refernces available in “Where Is THAT In The Bible?” (Also his “Surprised By Truth” series is really good, too).
I’ve had Protestant friends and Catholic friends. I’ve seen Protestants who barely know what’s in the Bible and I’ve seen Catholics who don’t know the first thing about anything the Church teaches. Either way, we’re all Christian and we all desire the same thing: Salvation and spending Eternity in Heaven with God. Despite our differences, that is a powerful thing to have in common.
What the Roman Catholic Church wants is for all the Protestants to “come home,” i.e. rejoin Rome and pledge allegiance to the pope. And there are many silly Protestants who don’t know their history, the Word of God, and the Lord of the Word. They play with fire when they speak of rejoining Rome.
Like Old Testament Israel, the Church must be ever-reforming. Rome has not repented of her errors. What unites her is the papacy, a completely unbiblical office by which a mere man claims to represent the one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ. The pope usurps Christ’s authority, and Rome’s teachings ends up taking precedence over the Bible, the Word of God. Thus the pope is an antichrist.
Christians have fought many wars over their doctrinal differences, and men have given up their lives for them, being burned alive. If you’re a Protestant, you had better not engage in any sweet talk with Rome. Roman Catholics still worship Mary, saints, and pieces of bread.
No, I don’t respect the “[Roman] Catholic faith.” It’s opposed to the Word of God. I can and do respect some individual Roman Catholics who are very devout in their faith. Of course, I believe they are seriously mistaken and are in danger of their salvation.
Jon,
I could debate the whole thing with you until we’re both blue in the face. The bottom line is, whether you believe it or not, the Catholic Church is actually very scriptually based. I invite you to find out more and the truth about Catholicism so that you’re better informed. I don’t have any expectations of you doing so, however, I will leave resources for you (and/or anyone else who might be interested) in case you should change your mind.
Resources:
“The Catechism Of The Catholic Church” states everything about what we believe.
“Surprised By Truth” series by Patrick Madrid, also Madrid’s book “Where Is THAT In The Bible?”
“Rome Sweet Home” by Scott & Kimberly Hahn
“I’m NOT Being Fed!” by Jeff Cavins (explains the Eucharist in detail) Jeff Cavins also has a book about his conversion to Catholicism (which I have yet to read) called “My Life On The Rock”
The Catholic Answers Website
EWTN website
The Coming Home Network
There are others here–Lori Pieper, for example–who have at least considered what I was saying and responded to it.
Thanks.
She refers to some passages, e.g. John 6, which I would have to examine in context.
I gave my interpretation (the Catholic Churchs interpretation) of this passage in my comment at 11:19 p.m. Only an outline of course.
I would probably also have to look up my church’s exegesis.
Oh, so you have an authoritative tradition of exegesis in your church? Just like the Catholics! Tradition is great, isn’t it?
There is a right way to handle the Word of truth, and I obviously don’t look to the Roman Catholic Church to get it. She’s too invested in herself and the pope to truly care about the glory of the one they claim to represent, i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ. Romanists make too much of our mother, the Church, and too little of her bridegroom, the Word made flesh.
Those two friars were breaking the Second Commandment (or First Commandment, if you’re a Roman Catholic).
OK, here is where you lost me. Did you listen to that video? Honestly listen to that video? Did you not hear the friar lovingly recount on the references to Jesus in every book of the Bible? Or did you not get past the fact that he was holding the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance, fly off the handle and not even listen to the rest?
Who do you imagine he is worshiping? Baal? Gaia? Zeus? NO, he is worshipping his Lord and Savior JESUS CHRIST!! That you don’t think He is in that monstrance is hardly the important point. There is no question about WHO that friar is worshipping. He knows that his Lord is in heaven as well as in the host. He is not worshipping an idol. He is not worshipping nothing! That is what makes the idolatry charge so stupid.
And who taught him that love for Jesus? None other than the Catholic Church. Groan aaaaach [headdesk]. I don’t even believe you are really serious about this argument.
And where do you get your ideas about Catholics (all of which are 100% wrong)? Have you ever been to a Catholic Church? Read a book by a Catholic? Talked to a Catholic? Seriously studied the Catechism of the Catholic Church? No you prefer the “traditions of men” in your church – at least as far as what they say about Catholics is concerned. The other name for which is lies. Good solid lies about history and doctrine. You are spreading them in ignorance, but they are still lies.
We Catholics rely on the true tradition Jesus himself gave us. when he entrusted his authority to his apostles. I’d seriously urge you to read that book by Mark Shea that I mentioned – By What Authority? It lays out the sola scriptura error very clearly. It will also show you that the papacy is not unbiblical. More than that I can’t do right now.
This is no time in history for the Body of Christ to be divided over misunderstandings that could easily be cleared up if people would only be open and listen to each other. Let’s pray for each other.
For a Protestant viewpoint of the Lord’s Supper, look up Matthew W. Mason’s “A Spiritual Banquet: John Calvin on the Lord’s Supper” (available online). From that piece comes the following excerpt:
In contrast to a typical Roman Catholic view, Calvin does not view John 6 as eucharistic; ‘it would have been inept and unseasonable to preach about the Lord’s Supper before He had instituted it.’ Indeed, to suggest that Jesus here speaks of the Supper, inverts the relationship, for ‘we might say that Christ intended the holy Supper to be a seal of this discourse.’ John 6 does not speak of the Supper; the Supper signs and seals the promises of John 6.
Lori, doesn’t exegesis just refer to the explanation of a text according to sound principles of explanation? We might differ in what those sound principles might be. Some of the ones that I hold to are that (1) Scripture interprets Scripture, (2) clearer, more direct passages take precedence over relatively obscure ones, and (3) everything must be taken in context. I’m not a trained theologian, however; I’ve never been to seminary. So I go to those I have, pastors in much church.
You say that those friars were worshiping the Lord Jesus Christ. That’s not what I read in Jill Stanek’s post. Jill’s source said “it’s truly beautiful to see people in the midst of their shopping, stopping to kneel before the Lord.” That Lord they were kneeling before was supposedly the “body of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist brought right into the center of Preston, England’s marketplace.” In other words, they saw some bread the friars were holding and kneeled down before it.
Transubstantiation is official Roman Catholic doctrine; I know what I’m talking about.
The idolatry charge isn’t stupid. The Roman Catholic Church routinely breaks the Second Commandment, which it regards as part of the First, with its images, pictures, and relics, which it calls “aids for worship.” The polytheistic nations surrounding Old Testament Israel were idolatrous, and God clearly said that He was not to be worshipped in such a way. He is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth. To be sure, Jesus Christ is also physical, but we don’t worship Him for His manhood. It’s because of His deity that we can worship Him.
Finally, I didn’t watch the video in Jill’s post. I can’t. My Internet connection is too slow, and today it’s especially slow (so that I haven’t been able to go back to my comments to edit them afterwards). Nevertheless, Jill offended me enough in her uncritical quote from the National Catholic Register that I don’t have to go to the video to watch it. Jill might have had an excuse if she was a Lutheran (with a belief in consubstantiation), but her biography only says that she’s a member of Parkview Christian Church, which would seem to be “nondenominational.”
Your principles of exegesis are sound ones, Jon. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI just wrote a whole book, Jesus of Nazareth, based on the first one.
My dig about tradition was simply to point out that Protestants rely on tradition all the time. Just now you quoted John Calvin in support of your interpretation of John 6. You rightly depend on the greater knowledge of your pastor. In other words, it’s not wrong to depend on authority and tradition in regard to Biblical interpretation.
Yet you become positively inflamed when you think of Catholic accepting the Pope’s authoritative interpretation of scripture. The difference is, the Pope actually HAS the authority, given to him by Christ, handed down from Peter and the other apostles. “Whoever hears you,” he said, “hears me” (Lk. 10:16). My memory fails me – when did John Calvin get that same promise from Christ? Did your own pastor get that promise from Christ? Yet Peter’s successors did receive that promise and possess that authority to this very day.
So you didn’t watch the video – that explains a lot. You can click on the link to the Register and read the whole of the friar’s words I was talking about, as the columnist transcribed it. Then come back here and tell me that friar wasn’t worshippting Jesus Christ.
Yes, transubstantiation is Catholic doctrine. That doctrine states clearly that what the bread and wine are transformed into, and what we receive in the Eucharist is not just the body, or just the body and blood, but the “body, blood, soul, and DIVINITY” of Jesus. In other words, the whole Jesus. So we ARE worshipping the divinity of Jesus when we adore the Blessed Sacrament. There – now you know for a certainty that no idolatry is involved. You could have known this a long time ago, if you had just asked, instead of ranting right and left. A couple of other Catholic commentors stated the doctrine here even before I did!
That’s all I can do for now.
I really enjoyed the video. I became Catholic 2 years ago after seeing the truths of the Catholic faith in the Bible. This year I taught Sunady School and we “proved” Apostolic Tradition and the Papacy from Scripture.
This site has a lot of useful scriptural info:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/
I read John Salza’s book, The Bibilical Basis for the Catholic Church, which I highly recommend. His explanation of the connection between faith and works was amazing.
Roman Catholics still worship Mary, saints, and pieces of bread.
Jon, Since you are stating the above as fact here, I’m thinking that you (and others who have taught you) are doing it elsewhere. Please take the time to learn the truth and stop spreading these falsehoods. Untruthful statements can and do cause hurt and scorn towards others.
Lori, I’m well aware of the Roman Catholic Church’s attempt to justify the papacy. It goes way back in church history to competing claims between the bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome. Already then, Scripture was being misapplied. It’s certain that Christ founded His Church on the teaching of the prophets and apostles (both Old and New Testaments), but there was no apostolic succession. The office of the apostle was a unique one for the establishment of the New Testament Church. Therefore, the papacy is an extra-Biblical invention, and a demonic one at that (because the pope is said to be the vicar of Christ).
However, the New Testament does speak of the under-shepherds of the one great Shepherd, Jesus Christ. They’re also called elders (presbyters) or bishops. John Calvin was one such shepherd, a very knowledgeable one. God much used him to articulate the true doctrines of Scripture over against the heresies of what became the Roman Catholic Church (as opposed to the churches of the Reformation).
Transubstantiation is official Roman Catholic doctrine. As a Protestant, I believe it to be a heresy. As I’ve already shown, it results in idolatry. People end up worshiping mere pieces of bread (and, again, that seems to be why they don’t drink physical wine).
Praxedes, there’s a reason why Protestants speak of Mariolatry, the folly of praying to saints, and the idolatry of the mass. The Roman Catholic Church is the reason.
Jon,
I used to believe all the lies you have been taught. Now that I know the Truth, my relationship with Christ has taken on a much deeper and personal level. I have found that He did establish a Church, and He did leave us shepherds, and He did tell us how to worship Him. Those little parts of the Bible, especially John 6, no longer need mental gymnastics to discount. The epistle of James is no stumbling block to me anymore.
Once I stopped Protesting, my faith life has blossomed, I pray that one day, the same will happen for you.
Susan
“Transubstantiation is official Roman Catholic doctrine… As I’ve already shown, it results in idolatry.”
Jon, there isn’t anything to “show” here. If Catholics are correct and the substance of bread and wine actually change into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, then to worship what looks like bread and wine is actually to worship Christ, and it is not idolatry. If Catholics are wrong and transubstantiation does not take place, then it is CLEARLY idolatry, albeit one that many Catholics are invincibly ignorant of. So it only results in idolatry if transubstantiation is incorrect. But if you assume that transubstantiation is incorrect, then there is nothing to show because it so clearly and obviously follows that it is idolatry.
Jon,
I’m glad to see that you’ve begun to engage in serious and substantive conversation here. The problem with most Protestant Churches is not that they accept the literal sense of the scriptures for their exegesis. The problem is that they begin by rejecting the literal sense of the scriptures for their exegesis, especially around those parts of scripture that Catholics take a literal interpretation to indicate the establishment of the sacraments.
Confession is often scorned by Protestants who claim that no man has the power to forgive sins, yet at the ascension, Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. Whose sins you shall hold bound, they are held bound.
The Apostolic charge is seen being transmitted in scripture to the next generation of Apostles (bishops) as in Paul to Timothy. If you want to see stunning exegesis from two powerful scripture scolars, then pick up the books by Hahn and Pitre what I suggested to Sydney.
As for praying to saints, I’m glad to see that you didn’t accuse us of worshipping them. Yes, we pray to saints. We get excoriated for it, as we are told that if our faith were strong enough, then we would approach Jesus directly, that we need no other intermediaries. That sounds good on paper, until one sees that almost all Protestant churches have intercessory prayer chains.
We have them too. We ask friends, relatives and neighbors to pray for our loved ones who are ill, etc, the same as you guys do. However, we employ the whole Body of Christ in our intercessory prayer. We ask those in Heaven and on earth.
If you absolutely need a Protestant’s perspective on the Catholic Church, Dr. Scott Hahn is your man. He was a rabidly anti-Catholic Presbyterian minister who has a very interesting conversion story which is told in his book “Rome Sweet Home”.
Be Well.
Jesus does not belong in a gym bag.
Bobby said, “But if you assume that transubstantiation is incorrect, then there is nothing to show because it so clearly and obviously follows that it is idolatry.”
That’s fine, Bobby. As you say, then, since I regard transubstantiation as incorrect, I understand it to be idolatry. There are others here who do not seem to see what is obvious to you.
Gah! Rome Sweet Home!
It’s a whole genre of conversion stories, and every sect has at least a couple — Protestant, Roman, and Orthodox. For that matter, I suppose Jewish, Muslim, and Scientologist (hurl).
The genre drives me nuts. ;-)
But no, I don’t think the Mass is idolatry even though I consider Rome to be wrong about transubstantiation.
Here’s an interesting anecdote, though. Catholics may with free conscience participate in Protestant communion, because it’s a memorial. But Protestants should not participate in the Mass.
Just an interesting asymmetry there.
Anyway, one of my biggest problems with the Roman church is that she has tolerated an extraordinary degree of syncretism in her missions over the centuries. In some cultures, it’s difficult to recognize Christ anywhere in the Roman ecclesia except the Mass. Superstition and idolatry dog the heels of the church in some places.
A classic example: My own neighbor figures his statuette of the Virgin will ward off vandalism of his property. And he’s right. That’s because in our neighborhood, gang bangers who might vandalize are superstitious and have similar tattoos they believe will protect them from harm.
My neighbor loves God and the gang bangers (think Mexican drug cartel aspirants, folks) clearly do not. Both in thrall to the same superstitions. It’s unseemly!
Not posting to put down the Catholic faith — I’m ecumenical in an ETS way. Just rattling off the top of my head how frustrated I am with many Catholics whose piety has strayed far afield of the gospel.
Bruce: What on earth are you talking about regarding Luther and Hebrew/Greek?
Darnit, I’d have a lot to say about much of the above discussion, but I’m going to try to resist. ;-) Lori’s remarks are important, and frankly I really like the Roman catechism. I disagree with some, of course, but it’s an excellent document. One reason I think it’s excellent is because when I come across a superstitious Catholic or one who fears me because I’m Protestant, I can point them to their own catechism. I believe it’s sufficiently faithful in the essentials of the Christian faith that even as a Protestant I can urge my Catholic friends to consider its contents more seriously than they often do.
In a sense, I’ve known Catholics who need to shed superstitions (whether about Protestantism or just other odd superstitions that seem parasitic on their Catholicism — as I indicated above, probably a result of a history of syncretistic crap in their own tradition) by better acquainting themselves with their authentic Catholic faith before I can even begin to have a conversation with them about what differentiates their faith from Protestantism and what errors Rome has made.
“Head deeper into your own catechism and you’ll end up much closer to other Christians of whatever faithful tradition.” :-)
Alas, too many Catholics AND Protestants stay shallow within their respective traditions. This is true of priests and laypeople too.
Hey there Rasqual. I appreciate your honestly and kindness. Just a couple quick things.
“Catholics may with free conscience participate in Protestant communion, because it’s a memorial. But Protestants should not participate in the Mass.”
This needs to be nuanced a bit. Catholics can participate in any non-Catholic Christian service, but they may not ever receive their communion. This is because Catholics, as I will mention in a second, believe that to receive the Eucharist or communion is an outward sign of the body that symbolizes saying that you believe everything that this Church teaches; that you are in communion with this Church. Clearly a Catholic cannot say this about a non-Catholic church. Protestants may attend mass and participate as fully as they wish but they may NOT receive the Eucharist. That is the only restriction. And this makes perfect sense from both sides since reception of teh Eucharist is an outward symbol that one believes and submits to ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church. In other words, one is saying with their body “Yes, I believe!” when one receives the Eucharist. So clearly a Protestant would not want to do this because a Protestant (or a non-Catholic Christian in general) does not believe all the things that the Catholic Church teaches. But aside from that, Protestants may sing, kneel, receive ashes on ash Wednesday, receive a blessing, cross themselves, and participate in any way they want during teh mass other than receive the Eucharist.
As far as your neighbors go, well, I would agree that the stories you have conveyed to me do indeed show a belief in superstition and are not authentic representations of true Marian devotion or devotion to Jesus. So in that sense, I would share your frustrations! God love you.
I’m not certain why a Catholic could not participate in a Protestant communion.
What sayeth the Catechism? ;-)
A Protestant will not participate in the Mass only if s/he understands the meaning of the Mass, right. But a Catholic having comparable acquaintance with the differences between the two can participate freely in the Protestant communion for the very same reason.
I think you’re suggesting that a Catholic thinking about the Protestant communion the way they think about the Catholic Mass should not participate. Agreed. But that’s not what we’re talking about here, because we’re talking about literate participants who understand the difference.
It would be a bit like the whole “meat sacrificed to idols” thing, I think. A literate Catholic with clear conscience would be fine with Protestant communion, free to participate because there’s nothing whatsoever about it that has anything at all to do with the Mass. It would be an act of sharing with Protestants what Catholics are genuinely free to share, in the faith, with Protestants.
It is only when Catholic preconceptions might be projected onto Protestant communion that there might be a problem — and hence, “literate” and “clear conscience.”
But no, a Protestant presuming to participate in the Mass would be lacking understanding (“illiterate”), or negligent of conscience.
“Believing everything the church teaches” does not go with the territory of participating in a Protestant communion, so that would be a Catholic projection as well. That’s a presumption you’d leave at the door if you wished to merely commemorate Christ’s historic sacrifice while among Protestants celebrating communion.
Is that a complicated issue? For many Protestants and Catholics, yes, doubtless. But so was meat sacrificed to idols in Paul’s day. The result of apostolic teaching was the rule of reason and conscience in life and practice of faith.
By the way, I love Aquinas. As far as I’m concerned, he ranks with the best minds the world has known, and in Christ’s church he should be widely read by Protestants as well as Catholics. Interestingly, I’ve found myself among Catholics and AGAIN, doggonit, have had to point them in the direction of their own guiding lights. It’s frustrating, as a Protestant, to incur their suspicion (for being a Protestant) on grounds found to be superstitious, such that I then have to acquaint them with Catholic teaching and urge them to spend more time in the Summa so they’ll get things straight.
We must send our friends toward Christ by the most direct and faithful means possible. For those who are Catholic and suspicious of Protestants, that would be to send them to the heart of their tradition — get them away from the periphery of superstition and illiteracy. This can be one insanely ironic way to acquaint them with the gospel as Protestants understand it.
LOVE the video!
In response to the on going debate with Jon, as a Catholic who does defend the Catholic faith on a regular basis because we should, I have also learned there is a time to kick the dust from my sandals. Jon is not here to have a conversation about the truth of the Catholic Church, he is here to argue he is right about the Catholic Church and what he believes is the truth. He is not open, I believe it’s time to kick the dust off the sandals and walk away.
For those whose hearts are open, the truth will find a way, and you will be blessed….does not mean you need to become Catholic but it is nice when someone stops believing the lies and misinformation about the Catholic Church and in turn receives great peace in doing so.
Hi, I am a new commenter. As a Catholic, I just cannot resist this discussion. I am also 18 and impetuous.
Matthew 26:26-28
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
Here Jesus speaks of the covenant of Moses and the Passover. Jesus is the Pascal Lamb, who was found to be faultless, (unblemished) by Pilate, whose bones were unbroken, who died as the lambs were being sacrificed for Passover. The sacrificed lamb, which must be without blemish, must be eaten to fulfill the covenant, as described in Exodus 12 verse 8, along with unleavened bread! In verse 14, it is described as a perpetual institution, celebrated with a pilgrimage to the LORD. In verse 17, we are commanded to keep the custom of the unleavened bread, again as a perpetual institution.
Mark 14:22-24
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.”
Luke 22:19-20
Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.”
All of John 6.
1 Corinthians 10:14-17
Therefore, my beloved, avoid idolatry. I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is in not a participation in the body of Christ?
It is hard to make this sound figurative.
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
Rasquel,
“I’m not certain why a Catholic could not participate in a Protestant communion.
What sayeth the Catechism?”
Check out teh Code of canon law, 844 http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2S.HTM
Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.
§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.
§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.
Also, paragraph 1400 of the CCC http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/euch2.html
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.”[236] It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”[237]
There really is no question about it; Catholics may not receive communion in a non-Catholic church (except Orthodox). We understand communion differently than simply a sharing of a meal.
“I think you’re suggesting that a Catholic thinking about the Protestant communion the way they think about the Catholic Mass should not participate. Agreed. But that’s not what we’re talking about here, because we’re talking about literate participants who understand the difference.
It would be a bit like the whole “meat sacrificed to idols” thing, I think. A literate Catholic with clear conscience would be fine with Protestant communion, free to participate because there’s nothing whatsoever about it that has anything at all to do with the Mass. It would be an act of sharing with Protestants what Catholics are genuinely free to share, in the faith, with Protestants. ”
I do get what you’re saying here, but even a Catholic who sees the difference and realizes that the Protestant communion isn’t attempting to “be like” the Catholic communion still may not receive. Just the name, communion, symbolizes that those who participate in it are in communion, and even through we have a real deal of love and respect for our non-Catholic brethren, we aren’t in communion, at least not complete communion. So even a Protestant communion which is ONLY meant to be a sharing and nothing else cannot be participated in by a Catholic (I doubt the grammatical validity of that last “sentence.”
““Believing everything the church teaches” does not go with the territory of participating in a Protestant communion, so that would be a Catholic projection as well. That’s a presumption you’d leave at the door if you wished to merely commemorate Christ’s historic sacrifice while among Protestants celebrating communion.”
Yes, you are correct about that being a Catholic projection, but we can’t leave it at the door. We all base our understanding of communion on Jesus’ words, and as Catholics we believe that he objectivity wanted it to be an outward sign of communion. Now we may very well be wrong about that, but given what we believe about it, we simply can’t leave it at the door, even though Protestants may not understand it that way.
“Interestingly, I’ve found myself among Catholics and AGAIN, doggonit, have had to point them in the direction of their own guiding lights. It’s frustrating, as a Protestant, to incur their suspicion (for being a Protestant) on grounds found to be superstitious, such that I then have to acquaint them with Catholic teaching and urge them to spend more time in the Summa so they’ll get things straight.”
Ugh, consider your frustrations doubled on this end! It is embarrassing, and I apologize on behalf of my fellow Catholics.
“In contrast to a typical Roman Catholic view, Calvin does not view John 6 as eucharistic; ‘it would have been inept and unseasonable to preach about the Lord’s Supper before He had instituted it.’ ”
I guess it was just as inept and unseasonable for Jesus to say a man must be born again of water and the Spirit before He died, rose, ascended, and then sent His Spirit.
John Calvin takes Jesus and strips Him of His divine capacity to see the future, to know all that He heard from the Father, and to fortell it, to instruct, and to implement based upon His wise design for the unfolding of revelation. If Jesus didn’t do things to Calvin’s liking, then the literal sense of the scripture must be wrong, because no less a luminary than John Clavin says so.
And then we are treated to a diatribe about Catholics pledging their allegiance to the Pope?!?! It would seem, Jon, that you give a blind allegiance to Calvin in a way that Catholics do not for their Popes.
John Calvin is not scriptural, yet he denies the literal sense of the scriptures. That’s heresy.
(*groan*) Oh, my aching back…! Does this always happen when I go away for a few days…?
Jon, forgive me, but this diatribe of yours (even though you mitigated it into some substantive discussion, and eased off a bit from the name-calling) was completely unnecessary and rude. Jill posted a positive example of a Christian’s public demonstration of worship of God, in the face of a secular society that has no use for (and, quite frankly, hates) such a thing. This was a good, sensible, and generous thing for her to do… and your barely-restrained hysterics and bigoted rejoinders merely made you look quite small, in comparison. In all candour: if Jill had posted a video about someone in a public mall leading people through the “sinner’s prayer” and offering “Once Saved, Always Saved” assurances, I would not have been offended (though I’d have winced a bit, internally, at the OSAS bit), and I would have rejoiced in the beauty of Christian example in the very midst of an anti-Christian, secular and/or pagan culture, and I certainly would not have “launched” and shot off my mouth about my personal bugaboos. Why you could not find the graciousness to do the same is beyond me, and it’s rather disgusting to see. Could you not be persuaded to have just a modicum of self-control, hold your tongue, and not let (even your perceptions of) the perfect be the enemy of the good?
No one is requiring you to sign up for the next RCIA class; no need to panic. But is it so outrageous for us to ask that you hold your tongue re: sectarian issues which were obviously NOT the point of Jill’s post? The very idea (all light ribbing aside) that Jill posted this in order to give explicit “support and cover” to Catholicism is laughable. (I say this as a devout Catholic, BTW.)
On transubstantiation, I’ll say this. Whether a thing is taken literally or figuratively (as a metaphor) in scripture is much at issue here. I see three issues.
1. Are we defending a view of literal/figurative because it’s our tradition or not, or on the merits?
2. What are the merits?
3. Do we apply these merits consistently in our exegeses? How willing are we to apply our rubric of literalness/figurativeness elsewhere, not just in these passages?
4. Occam’s razor. Whether we consider a passage literal or figurative is a momentous decision. Does that decision land us in an inscrutable morass of rationalization, or leave us free of esoteric justifications?
I’ll address #4 briefly: I believe the Aristotelian justification of transubstantiation to be a hopelessly complicated and unwarranted epicycle. When I say “complicated” I don’t mean I’m rationally intimidated by it — I’m not. I understand it perfectly (comes from getting my Aristotle by way of Aquinas — I’m not joking!). Avoiding the literal reading lands Protestants in no heresy, and requires no esoterics.
Oh heck, I’ll speak to merit as well. In context, this was a Passover supper. Things on the table represented things, to Jewish participants. They were not the things themselves. Everything was symbolic, and that wasn’t even a conscious thought (“In celebrating this Seder I must remain aware that nothing here is literal” – not on one’s mind!). At a supper where everything on the table and multiple acts during the Seder serve a metaphorical and memorial purpose, something else is going on. The anticipation of the Passover — Elijah’s cup, the cup of redemption, etc — is being fulfilled in the Person officiating. He is about to realize the hope of Israel (short of the eschaton). The cups can no longer signify what they’ve previously signified. Remembering the exodus and anticipating Elijah are now mooted by cosmic deliverance from sin and the real presence of Messiah. Whatever one may think of the cup or bread, a transformation of the entire Passover celebration itself has just taken place. Jews celebrating it in the future without recognizing Messiah will be incomplete in their celebration. Some of the items on the table now mean different things.
Indeed, the mooting was so complete that the Lord’s Supper was born out of Passover like a new child, and understandably displaced Jewish feasts in importance for Jewish Christians. I’d guess this among many other things made Gentiles feel more welcome during a time when the church was still not 100% clear about the implications of the gospel for Jews and Gentiles in Christian fellowship.
But my point would be that the entire Seder was steeped in the significance and meaning of things. The Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper is one of continuity in this regard. Jesus transformed the meaning of something forever. We commemorate that. His presence isn’t occasional when we celebrate a mass, it’s constant as mediated by the Holy Spirit (the latter true for Catholics too). We have received his grace. He continue to receive it — just not in the Mass (it’s also true for Catholics that grace is available outside the sacraments).
Yikes. I said to myself that I wouldn’t get sucked in. AAaaargh!
On transubstantiation, I’ll say this. Whether a thing is taken literally or figuratively (as a metaphor) in scripture is much at issue here. I see three issues.
1. Are we defending a view of literal/figurative because it’s our tradition or not, or on the merits?
2. What are the merits?
3. Do we apply these merits consistently in our exegeses? How willing are we to apply our rubric of literalness/figurativeness elsewhere, not just in these passages?
4. Occam’s razor. Whether we consider a passage literal or figurative is a momentous decision. Does that decision land us in an inscrutable morass of rationalization, or leave us free of esoteric justifications?
I’ll address #4 briefly: I believe the Aristotelian justification of transubstantiation to be a hopelessly complicated and unwarranted epicycle. When I say “complicated” I don’t mean I’m rationally intimidated by it — I’m not. I understand it perfectly (comes from getting my Aristotle by way of Aquinas — I’m not joking!). Avoiding the literal reading lands Protestants in no heresy, and requires no esoterics.
Oh heck, I’ll speak to merit as well. In context, this was a Passover supper. Things on the table represented things, to Jewish participants. They were not the things themselves. Everything was symbolic, and that wasn’t even a conscious thought (“In celebrating this Seder I must remain aware that nothing here is literal” – not on one’s mind!). At a supper where everything on the table and multiple acts during the Seder serve a metaphorical and memorial purpose, something else is going on. The anticipation of the Passover — Elijah’s cup, the cup of redemption, etc — is being fulfilled in the Person officiating. He is about to realize the hope of Israel (short of the eschaton). The cups can no longer signify what they’ve previously signified. Remembering the exodus and anticipating Elijah are now mooted by cosmic deliverance from sin and the real presence of Messiah. Whatever one may think of the cup or bread, a transformation of the entire Passover celebration itself has just taken place. Jews celebrating it in the future without recognizing Messiah will be incomplete in their celebration. Some of the items on the table now mean different things.
Indeed, the mooting was so complete that the Lord’s Supper was born out of Passover like a new child, and understandably displaced Jewish feasts in importance for Jewish Christians. I’d guess this among many other things made Gentiles feel more welcome during a time when the church was still not 100% clear about the implications of the gospel for Jews and Gentiles in Christian fellowship.
But my point would be that the entire Seder was steeped in the significance and meaning of things. The Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper is one of continuity in this regard. Jesus transformed the meaning of something forever. We commemorate that. His presence isn’t occasional when we celebrate a mass, it’s constant as mediated by the Holy Spirit (the latter true for Catholics too). We have received his grace. He continue to receive it — just not in the Mass (it’s also true for Catholics that grace is available outside the sacraments).
Yikes. I said to myself that I wouldn’t get sucked in. AAaaargh!
“I believe the Aristotelian justification of transubstantiation to be a hopelessly complicated and unwarranted epicycle.”
Wait, please clarify this. Are you saying you deny formal and material causes?
And remember, all Occam’s razor says is that we do not multiply causes beyond necessity. Even if the metaphysical justification for transubstantiation was extremely complicated, Occam’s razor would not apply. Simply looking at the explanation of transubstantiation does not take into account all teh other background information that needs to be explained when trying to formulate the best possible understanding of what communion should be.
Bobby: Thanks for the cites, though I don’t find them compelling in forbidding anything on the grounds I’m arguing. I’m not surprised to find that authority on this is a bit vague. Rome has always hedged where possible — and I consider that a virtue. Ratzinger’s work on the Catechism was awesome.
I still disagree that some things can’t be left at the door for some Catholics, and I would disagree that in doing so they’d be bad Catholics any more than Paul would be a bad Christian and a better pagan when he ate meat sacrificed to idols.
Look at it this way; I suspend disbelief when I enter a Catholic church and by reason of understanding what’s happening there I do NOT participate in the Mass. This does not make me a bad Protestant, it simply shows that I’m a literate Christian.
Likewise, only a Catholic who does NOT suspend disbelief when entering a Reformed church would consider participating in something that does not masquerade as the Mass to be problematic. A literate Catholic might still wish not to participate on other grounds, but not obviously because the barrier you’re concerned with actually exists. I don’t think it does.
Argh. My own analogy to the Corinthian situation lands Protestant communion on the analogous side of the pagans. LOL
Gerard, Jon, cool yer jets. You don’t want folks to start thinking “they deserve each other.” ;-)
Nevertheless, Jill offended me enough in her uncritical quote from the National Catholic Register that I don’t have to go to the video to watch it. Jill might have had an excuse if she was a Lutheran (with a belief in consubstantiation), but her biography only says that she’s a member of Parkview Christian Church, which would seem to be “nondenominational.”
Now we’re not allowed to quote from Catholic sources if we’re not Catholic, because this might offend some Protestants?? I don’t get this at all.
I am not Catholic and I found this to be a very moving video, and a beautiful example of people acknowledging the lordship of Jesus Christ on a public street. Whether or not there was anyone standing there holding the Eucharist makes zero difference to me.
“Thanks for the cites, though I don’t find them compelling. ”
Wait, don’t find them compelling as in don’t buy their arguments (fine, we can leave it at that) or don’t find it compelling as in don’t think that it settles the issue of whether or not the Catholic Church teaches that can receive communion in other churches? Because as far as the rest of your argument, I”m happy to leave it at that in the sense that you don’t think the Catholic Church has a good reason to not allow Catholics to receive communion in other Churchs, so that you think they have it wrong here, but are you trying to argue that the Catholic Church DOES teach that a Catholic may receive at a non-Catholic church based on what you say below?
“Argh. My own analogy to the Corinthian situation lands Protestant communion on the analogous side of the pagans.”
Bwahahaha! Even your analogies point towards the Catholic Church! (kidding :)
Bobby: To clarify: There are a few arguments for transubstantiation, and separating them (or sequencing them well) is a complicated matter in conversation among folks not too acquainted with each other’s history of reflection on the matter.
Without going full formal (I need to hop in the car for an hour’s drive now), I’m lamenting the complex implications of a decision to take the literal route. If the literal route is all we have, yes, the complications just go with the territory.
But that’s why I parked that as item 4 in my list. I ordered that carefully. Item 1 clears the landscape. Item 2 identifies the matter. Item 3 ensures we’re not being ad hoc about it. Item 4 is flypaper for anyone who ignored item 3. ;-)
I laughed out loud at your question about formal and material causes. No cause for alarm, and it’s fun to be called out by someone who obviously marked me as a kindred Aristotelian and wished to keep a brother accountable. :-)
edit: The first — that there’s not sufficient denial in the docs to keep Catholics from enjoying a commemoration if they wish. I think the Roman teaching, like Paul’s, is concerned to prevent confusion that’s more likely than full-blown literacy. As such, that’s salutary. As I once put it in a conversation about Paul’s remarks, “Paul goes on to cite this disparity of knowledge as a rationale for limiting personal freedom (verse 9 & following). As a solution to a real social problem in a church with converts whose spiritual immaturity rendered them vulnerable to the pitfalls of superstition, Paul offers the principle of deferring to those who lack certain knowledge. They can’t help it, so don’t unwittingly (perhaps witlessly) jeopardize their spiritual well-being by enjoying the freedom appropriate of those who understand things better. Consider yourself to be your brother’s keeper, etc. ”
Gotta run!
Blech… I empathize with you about getting “sucked in”! Ah, well… in moderation, perhaps!
Rasqual wrote:
4. Occam’s razor. Whether we consider a passage literal or figurative is a momentous decision. Does that decision land us in an inscrutable morass of rationalization, or leave us free of esoteric justifications?
Half a moment, here. First, Ockham’s Razor is very prone to being abused by mentioning only part of the maxim (i.e. “do not multiply explanations”) without mentioning the rest (i.e. “beyond necessity, all other things being equal”). Ockham’s Razor is only applicable when comparing equiprobable options (i.e. both are equally likely to be true). It’s not a simple-minded “simpler is always better!”
For example: if I were to ask why water expands when it freezes (compared to water at, say, 4 degrees C), one possible answer could be: “it’s magic!” Compare that simple, elegant answer to the wearisome, pedantic, esoteric-terminology-laden and mind-numbing-mechanism-inventing explanation offered by chemists and physicists! Why on earth would anyone prefer the latter? “Ockham’s Razor is the death of it!” some might say… and they’d be quite wrong.
As a case closer to home: do you believe in the Trinity (i.e. three Divine Persons in One God)? If so, why… especially when Jews, Muslims, and Unitarians have a far easier explanation which avoids the “inscrutable morass of rationalization” necessary to arrive at such a paradoxical (if not flatly contradictory, according to them), esoteric justification of such a counter-intuitive idea?
Do you see what I mean? Simplicity is wonderful… but over-simplification is bad, and even deadly. The mere fact that an explanation seems convoluted says nothing especially about the explanation’s validity or soundness. (Talk with Bobby Bambino about some of his exploits in teaching some of the more abstract concepts in higher mathematics to his students, and ask him if his students accept every last word with a pleasant nod of utter, complete understanding and mastery, and with a sigh of delight at the intuitiveness and elegant simplicity! :) )
Secondly: Ockham’s Razor is a general rule… it is NOT a guarantee! One can’t simply follow it in all circumstances, on all occasions, and expect to be infallible in one’s decisions.
To illustrate the above, take this short (and delightful) bit from G.K. Chesterton’s “The Usual Article”):
LOL, Rasqual. Alrighty, my friend, you get going. I know how addictive this can be, and I need to get back to work too. I think this is going to start getting pretty deep, so maybe we should just cool it for time being or a while. God love you.
You can come home now, Jill.
With all due respect… saying this to a Christian who is not away from the Lord and not walking in sin is, quite frankly, insulting.
I have such respect for the Catholics who frequent this site. Please consider showing the same respect to your Protestant brothers and sisters- that is, if you believe them to be your brothers and sisters in Christ.
Rasqual:
:) Yes… go, shoo! I’ll keep, never fear! Far be it from me to suck anyone else into this sort of tar trap!
Paladin: Yeah, understood. My “If the literal route is all we have, yes, the complications just go with the territory” comment, above.
Always good to see a suspected abuse of Occam called out.
Good minds here, thank God (literally) :-)
OK, I’m really leaving now!
I only need the feeblest provocation, and it gives me the sheerest delight, to quote Chesterton, anyway, so it was worth the price of admission for me, by any standard… :)
Kel, what does “Not walking in sin” mean?
Sorry, maybe I should just quick explain my curiosity about the comment concerning the complexity of an Aristotilian explanation of transubstantiation. Basically, the form changes, and when it comes to the material cause, we introduce the concept of those material causes which are not necessary for an object’s form i.e. the accidents of an agent. And really that is it! Now granted there is a lot to understand in terms of the actual metaphysics of those words, but Aristotelian metaphysics is really the metaphysics of common sense, put into a formal and careful language. In other words, I think that if you really do think that the explanation from Aristotelian metaphysics is too complicated (or whatever), the problem isn’t so much with the transubstantiation explanation, but with Aristotelian metaphysics itself. That was sort of what I was getting at when I asked about denying formal and material causes…
For anyone who was unable or did not watch the video:
As someone else said, as one friar held up the Monstrance with Jesus’s body another was naming book by book in the Bible what Jesus was in each book–things like “Comforter, savior” and names like that. He was clearly worshipping Jesus Christ.
Those conversion stories I mentioned are in-depth answers as to why the person became a Catholic. Several of these converts were very devout Protestant Ministers. I’m sorry you don’t like them, but I know people who get a lot out of them (including myself) so that is why I cited them as a resource.
It’s been very joyful for me to read the comments on here and see so many Roman Catholic Christians. I’ve also been overjoyed to know so many of them know so much on Catholicism. I knew what the Church taught on the Eucharist and many other things, of course, before this post, but it’s still good to see people explaining it so clearly. What a reaffirmation of my own faith!
What so many of the non-Catholics and Protestants have put forth as arguments against Catholicism is nothing I haven’t encountered many, many times. These are misconceptions that are taught in just about every Protestant Church.
As to Mary, time and time again she is recognized in the Bible. In Biblical times recognizing women was simply not done. The fact that he even addresses her as “Woman” in John’s Gospel (more than once–at the Wedding at Cana and from the Cross) is a big deal. Jesus never did anything for no reason. So there was a reason He took note of His mother and even obeyed her even though He said “My time has not yet come” in John 2 (Wedding at Cana). Mary, for her part, always points to Christ. She always, always encourages, instructs and tells us to “Do as He says.” (which is what she tells the servants at the Wedding At Cana: “Do whatever he tells you.” John 2:4). I was once told that wine was a metaphor for happiness–in the sense that when Mary tells Jesus “They have no wine.” That was a real problem–for weddings are a celebration. In Isaiah having wine is spoken about (I can’t remember which chapter and verse, but it’s before chapter 30). From the Cross Jesus tells the disciple whom He loves and His mother: “Woman, behold your son.” “Son, behold your mother.” He made sure Mary was taken care of.
In Luke’s Gospel the angel recognizes Mary and address her in a particularly differential way: “Hail, favored one!” She was favored by God. Having God’s favor must mean she was important. Then the angel goes on to tell her to have no fear and that she’s going to bear God’s own son! Imagine being told that. That’s incredible. That’s a huge deal. So Mary asks how that’s possible since she’s never been with a man (hence the title Virgin Mary) the angel responds that “the Holy Spirit’s going to come down on her and the power fo the Lord will overshadow her.” He also talks about how her elderly cousin, Elizabeth is pregnant and emphasizes that nothing is impossible with God. Mary goes as quickly as possible to Elizabeth. When she greets Elizabeth, Elizabeth cries out in a loud voice: “Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. But whom am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me? The moment your greeting reached my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.” (Luke 1: 42-45). So even from within Elizabeth’s womb, John the Baptist recognized Mary being the mother of His Savior and was overjoyed by her greeting. That’s pretty heavy duty stuff that he, Christ’s herald would recognize that from his mother’s womb. Mary, in her part, turns around and praises God with a beautiful canctile, in which she says: “…behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.” (Luke 1:48). Catholics call her blessed because we recognize what God did for her, and then in turn what Christ did for her in caring for her and recognizing her and obeying her as His mother. Why should we do differently?
We don’t worship Mary, we honor her. We honor her for the reason Elizabeth greeted her the way she did in Luke’s Gospel. Because Mary IS blessed, she’s blessed because God chose her. God chose her to bear His own son within her womb. We call Mary a taburnucle because she bore Christ INSIDE of her. God could’ve done any number of ways of bringing about His son to Earth–after all, He’s God He can do anything He wants. God chose Mary out of every woman–and being God He knows all time–He’s outside of Time and knows everything–so out of every woman that had been, and was, and would be, He chose Mary. Mary, being faithful to God, said “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” (Luke 1:38). That’s complete trust and faith in God right there. She’s trusting that God will care for her and that He has a particular plan in mind and she’s going to follow that plan.
Mary is an example of faith, trust, and drawing strength from God. She is looked to for that example. Being Christ’s mother and Christ being our brother and us being adopted by God as sons and daughters, we Catholics take Mary as our spiritual mother to guide us to draw closer to her son, Jesus Christ, the savior of the World–2nd person in the Holy Trinity.
In any case, we don’t worship her. That’s not what Catholics are taught to do where Mary is concerned. I know this is a common misconception. I understand why a person would think that, but it’s not so.
Also, in fairness, I do admit that I am only looking at one part of Rasqual’s 4 part discussion of communion, and not taking his whole argument into consideration. But I guess right now I”m more interested in a different question; that is, simply metaphysical considerations.
Ann Marie, why don’t you tell me what you think it means, according to the Bible.
But perhaps you are a Catholic who deems it “walking in sin” to not be Catholic?
Gerard, I noticed that you did not deal much with the argument. All you said was the following, “I guess it was just as inept and unseasonable for Jesus to say a man must be born again of water and the Spirit before He died, rose, ascended, and then sent His Spirit.”
Was Jesus speaking here of the meaning of baptism? Actually, Protestants don’t believe that baptism itself regenerates; it’s a sign and seal of God’s covenant promises. So, again, Jesus wasn’t explaining the meaning of baptism before He instituted it; He instituted baptism afterwards (Matt. 28) to give us material pledges of the spiritual truth. And the two New Testament sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper replace the bloody Old Testament sacrifices of circumcision and the Passover–because the Lord Jesus Christ had once for all made an efficacious sacrifice for all time, never to be repeated again.
Paladin said, “Jon, forgive me, but this diatribe of yours (even though you mitigated it into some substantive discussion, and eased off a bit from the
name-calling) was completely unnecessary and rude.”
Not true, Paladin! Where was the name-calling? I called the pope an antichrist, and I still do. That’s standard Protestantism. The reference to the mass as an accursed idolatry came from the highly regarded Heidelberg Catechism. My first comment was absolutely necessary, whether or not Roman Catholics happen to find it rude. The remaining comments followed partly out of courtesy to those interacting with me and partly out of my desire to defend the Christian faith.
Kel said, “I am not Catholic and I found this to be a very moving video, and a beautiful example of people acknowledging the lordship of Jesus Christ
on a public street. Whether or not there was anyone standing there holding the Eucharist makes zero difference to me.”
It was idolatry. God was ready to renounce His people when they worshiped the golden calf, but because Moses stood in the breech, He relented.
In the part of the world where I am living, Roman Catholics do worship Mary. They sing hymns to her. I’m thinking of one in particular that I sang; however, the references to her were changed to refer to God–because they only are true of Him.
I also don’t go through all the sophistication necessary to say that there is no worship of Mary in Roman Catholicism. I don’t believe there are various degrees of worship; it’s an un-Biblical notion.
Kel said, “I am not Catholic and I found this to be a very moving video, and a beautiful example of people acknowledging the lordship of Jesus Christ
on a public street. Whether or not there was anyone standing there holding the Eucharist makes zero difference to me.”It was idolatry. God was ready to renounce His people when they worshiped the golden calf, but because Moses stood in the breech, He relented.
Jon, I understand where you are coming from. I truly do. But you know as well as I do that idolatry takes place in the human heart. The people who knelt – to Whom did they kneel? Do you believe they would not have knelt had there been no Eucharist present?
Jon
At a Catholic Mass, Christ is the CENTER!
BTW, do you have pictures of loved ones that have passed on in your home? And I am pretty sure there are a few non catholic churches that have stained glass windows!
This is a beautiful video.
Mary is Christ’s mother. Catholics ask her to PRAY FOR US! Not any different than asking a friend to pray for you before major surgery.
Jon at 1:23 pm
Come on Jon, with all due respect, it sounds like you’re suggesting that we should pare Christianity down to the bare bones, simplifying it so much that we lose the mystery and beauty of it. I can understand how a non-Catholic might not understand our love of Mary, especially when your pastors tell you she was relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of Christ’s life. But is this enough of a difference to divide us? I have to wonder how Christ would react if he were on earth today and people told Him that his mother wasn’t “all that”. I think He might raise his voice a bit. I would think Christ is happy seeing our devotion (love) for her since he commanded that we honor our father and our mother and Mary was the Mother of the Most High.
And which Marian song are you referring to?
The reference to the mass as an accursed idolatry came from the highly regarded Heidelberg Catechism.
Highly regarded by whom?
We do not worship Mary. That’s your misunderstanding, not ours.
Here it is in plain English:
We respect each other. We respect the Saints.
We have a higher respect for Mary because she is the mother of our Lord.
We worship God.
The words we use are “dulia,” “hyperdulia,” and “latria.”
We sing to Mary and the Saints, but we don’t worship them. We believe they are close to God. We believe that asking them to pray for us on our behalf is the same as asking you to pray for us. If my mother is having knee surgery, and I asked you to pray for her, would you say no because you think I’m worshipping you? Of course not.
A friend asked me why we beseech Mary to pray for us. I said, “Remember before cell phones and voicemail? When someone wanted to ask you to come over and help them with something, they’d go to your house. If they saw your mother, they would say ‘Tell Bob, when you see him, to please come over to my house and help me with something.'” That’s it, in a nutshell.
And though some people don’t like wine first thing in the morning, both the consecrated wine and the consecrated eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. Myself, I do drink the wine at Mass as well as eating the eucharist. Many people walk past the minister holding the wine.
We may NOT partake of the bread and wine in a Protestant church. Why? Because if they see it as merely a symbol, then if we eat it, we are ACTING as if we agree, but since the Eucharist IS the body and blood of our Lord, we cannot pretend it is not. We MAY partake of the Eucharist in the Greek Orthodox Church and some of the other Orthodox Churches who share our theology and who are also Apostolic churches.
Jon needs to find out the facts and stop relying on rumors and lies: These are the facts. If you now hear them and see them, and yet deny them, it’s on you not me. I have done my duty by informing you of the facts and the truth.
Liz: In general, we don’t posit that any living terrestrial friend is omniscient enough to field prayer requests from scores of thousands of people a day. It’s certainly possible that the dead are capable of far more than we can imagine even prior to their resurrection and glorification, but it’s not convincing to sola scriptura types to claim it’s “not any different than asking a friend” when that’s obviously not true (the differences are profound) and there’s nothing much in scripture that suggests this heavenly friend is quite that powerful.
As for communion of the saints across the veil of death and time and centuries, I have no problem with it in principle. I have no problem with tradition in general either — Chesterton’s “democracy of the dead.”
I can sincerely say “Hail Mary,” but the scope of my intention and expectation is not quite fully Catholic. ;-)
Mary, being HIS mother, is Closest to Christ. She brings my prayers to HIM. She intercedes for me.
I hate when my faith is attacked, especially when it is attacked viciously with lies. I worship Christ, present in the Holy Eucharist, not “pieces of bread”.
Mother in Texas: “What so many of the non-Catholics and Protestants have put forth as arguments against Catholicism is nothing I haven’t encountered many, many times. These are misconceptions that are taught in just about every Protestant Church.”
Be sure to distinguish between arguments that attempt to refute Catholic teaching on the one hand, and on the other hand those arguments that merely defeat particular Catholic defenses of Catholic teaching. There’s a huge difference. I can offer many bogus proofs of how gravity works. Defeating those failed proofs does not mean we all suddenly begin to levitate. ;-)
When your faith appears to be under attack, it’s sometimes difficult to sort these out — but it’s important to.
Liz: I hope you don’t mean that Mary enjoys some special privilege for being heard that the rest of us do not, in Christ. She may bring your prayers to him, but that’s not appreciably different than when you bring your own prayers to him, I wouldn’t think.
The Christ was incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth not to bring one select human into a “closer” relationship with him than the rest of us, but to bring us all into a relational space not unlike the Godhead itself. Into the forever, it is the Trinitarian bond of love that will determine our affinities — not the terrestrial act of birthing the incarnate God. The ultimate act of bringing-closer in all of reality was Christ’s atonement. The act of being mother to Jesus of Nazareth was type — not archetype. It does not condition our proximity to, nor relationship with, our redeemer.
In the military, it’s not uncommon for combat Marines to describe their camaraderie as being closer than sex. That’s not astonishing. People who are willing to die to save each other and have that opportunity daily share an incredibly intimate relationship.
Christ died for me. It’s not through Marian devotion or mediated prayer that I become closer to him. The only way closer other than living a life of devotion to him is by dying for him as well.
Note that I’m not trying to put DOWN your Marian devotion. I’m most emphatically, however, insisting that in the grand proportion of God’s own openness to our eternal participation in the very quality of life that inheres in the Trinity itself, its place doesn’t seem quite as magnified as some Protestants worry sometimes seems the case for some Catholics.
And yes, you may infer as happily as you wish from my remarks that this evangelical is not only ecumenical with respect to Rome, but in respect of the Eastern church as well.
Oh my goodness! This has sparked quite a brawl!
I really don’t think Jill meant anything by posting this video, good grief.
As a Protestant, I don’t necessarily agree with the theology of what the monks are doing but it’s a beautiful gesture. And if it brings people to Christ, then to God be the glory!
Working in the pro-life field, I have many Catholic friends (and family!) and admire them for their faith. Both Catholics and Protestants have their crazies but it’s really not worth getting into ugly fights over.
Just my two cents. :)
I only came in to see what could have possibly generated 104 comments on this video. Should have known, lol.
Jon, as has been said, Mary is venerated. Honored. She is not worshipped. If you know people worshipping Mary, they are not doing so in accordance with Church teaching.
Ninek: “We may NOT partake of the bread and wine in a Protestant church. Why? Because if they see it as merely a symbol, then if we eat it, we are ACTING as if we agree, but since the Eucharist IS the body and blood of our Lord, we cannot pretend it is not. ”
You don’t need to if we’re not claiming that what we’re doing is a better version of what you’re doing.
We’re doing totally different things. We do them because we each think we’re being faithful to a single historical referent, but they are actually different things that shouldn’t be confused one for another.
Yesterday I went to a First Christian Reform Church, than Mass. I was nice, songs, a scripture on creation, a homily, intercesstion, some songs offering and a blessing. I was pleasantly surprise to see the Farewell blessing which was quite similar to the Catholic blessing. Many things were similar. The service was nice but church felt empty. The walls were bare. The people were welcoming, and I agreed with many things that were said, but I felt something missing and incomplete.
After the service I went to the Catholic church. I entered and smelled incense, the picture brought me to reflection (as they do my children). There was 3 readings plus a psaume, short homily, intercession, offering, and the rite of communion. Biblical references were inserted everywhere in the liturgy. I do not understand why other christian faith insist that the Catholic Church is not biblical or scriptural. The focus of each Catholic Mass is Jesus. What is the focus of a baptist service or in this case a reform church? The church set up is focused on the minister and his homily. Not only that, but, whatever Catholic Church I attend it is the same. Only the songs or homily generally differ. I also love the fact that in a way I am in connected with friends in other countries and we are united and in communion.
I also want to ask this of the protestants here – and this is a genuine question (no snark at all). The bible did not appear suddenly in its present form. It was compiled via council. What makes you trust the authority of the council in creating an inerrant initial compilation but doubt all other authority aside from your interpretation of the compiled form after that? Again – I stress stress stress there is NO snark here.
Chantal,
I’m sorry that was your experience. But the churches I have attended are focused on Jesus even though they are not Catholic. And I am able to enjoy that communion with Christians nationwide as well. I can honestly call foreign Christians “brother” and “sister” in Christ, even if we don’t speak the same language.
As with Protestants, Catholics simply cannot make the mistake of thinking they are the only ones that are spiritual and connected with Jesus. It’s not like we’re talking about Christians and Muslims here – I believe that we are in fact worshipping the same God.
I believe these comments have confused me about Christianity more than ever. ;)
I don’t see why anyone would be offended by that video, Catholic or not. It was a beautiful video.
Jon – Catholics do not swear allegiance to the pope. When you wish to have a discussion, it is often times best to start the discussion with a fact, not what you believe to be true, because that statement is not true. If you can quote me any writings from a Roman Catholic source that says that Catholics pledge allegiance to the pope, I would be very interested in reading it. Seriously – please give me a source for your statement.
Likewise, Catholics do not worship Mary. We do honor her. And, why not? She gave birth to Our Lord Jesus Christ. When you enter the home of a friend and his mother is there – do you ignore her? Or, do you honor her with a greeting? When you want to learn more about your friend, what would be the best source? Probably his mother. At the wedding in Cana – what did Mary do? She told the servers to do “what He tells you”…she, Mary, always points to Jesus.
It is easier, Jon, Paquel, Bobby Bambino, to continue your arguments against the Church, than it is to possibly ever think that the Church might be right and that those mere men, Calvin, Luther, Swindol, etc., may have been wrong.
No one is asking you to become Catholic – what we are asking you is to get your facts straight and not remain so ignorant in your postings.
The book that you look to for Christ’s life is a Catholic book – why use it if you are so opposed to the Catholic Church?
Lee,
I bleed Catholicism! I think you may have one of my comments confused with someone elses?
Hey Jack.
“I don’t see why anyone would be offended by that video.”
I think I can explain why a non-Catholic Christian would be offended (and I am Catholic). Catholics believe that a consecrated host (the Eucharist) actually becomes, not just symbolically but ontologically, the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus. Now as my friend Rasqual and I were discussing, Catholics believe that there are no physical changes to the bread but there really is a change of substance. Nonetheless, if the “bread” (though to a Catholic it is incorrect to call it bread) REALLY IS Jesus like we claim it is, then it is worthy of nothing less than worship. Hence, Catholics worship what looks like to the naked eye and to all scientific scrutiny is bread. Now if Catholics are wrong about this (as Jon and other Protestants would have to believe) then OBJECTIVLY SPEAKING we are worshiping a piece of bread, even though in our hearts we really believe we are worshiping Jesus. So from a non-Catholic Christian POV, they see this and see Catholics treating a piece of bread like it is God and worshiping it. And if we really are doing that, then darn right, that is offensive and blasphemous (again, even though we are simply confused by it). So I think that is the problem. Only God is worthy of worship, and if that is simply bread, then it is an offense and an outrage to worship it. Hope that makes sense.
Rasqual, I clarified because an early comment mistakenly assumed that a Catholic could partake of the bread in another church. But with all these comments, I can’t find the one I was originally referring to!
Despite the theological differences we all have, isn’t it awesome that after 2000 years, we are still talking about a humble carpenter that changed the world with his words and deeds? Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Beautiful are the feet on the sidewalk that bring the Good News to us.
Hi Bobby,
It makes more sense why it would offend people, explained like that. Learn something new every day! I really had no idea that Protestant communion (like the church I grew up in practiced) and Catholic communion were substantially different until today. Thanks for explaining.
My pleasure, Jack. Just to cover all bases, I should mention that maybe some Anglicans/Episcopalians would have the same view as the Catholics as far as communion/Eucharist goes (but Catholics would not recognize their communion as the Eucharist), but in general, I think it is fair to say that Catholics and non-Catholic Christians do indeed have substantially different views.
Kel, please don’t push aside my question with a question. I asked you first to explain to me what you mean by “not walking in sin.” So please do. Thanks so much.
Paladin… no man shall pluck believers out of the Father’s hand. How can you live not knowing you have assurance of salvation? You sound like a muslim when you say there is no assurance. They slave away and have no assurance Allah will accept them at the end. No thank you!
God does not leave us to wonder. His spirit whispers to ours to let us know we are His. We cannot be spiritually “unadopted” from God’s family. Once you’re under the blood you are under the blood and no sin you commit is too great to “undo” the redemption that has been done. This is not a license to sin but a comfort when we mess up… which guess what? We all do because we are ALL sinners and none is righteous no not one!
I have agreed to back off until I have read the books recommended to me to better understand the Catholic stance before I delve into debate since Jon and I have been told our understanding of Catholicism is wrong wrong wrong (though no one really cared to elaborate on that. We were assured that Catholics read Scripture but no explanation of doctrine that directly contradicts Scripture). Nonetheless, this video was offensive. But I understand that no right exists to not be offended. But I will speak out and Jon has a right to do so too. That is not “hysterics”. I was probably the only one hysterical. Jon’s tone was even and he made very good, scriptural, valid points.
Bobby – I apologize – I meant no disrespect – to either you or any of the other posters – I should have not put your name in with the “arguing a point”. Please accept my apology.
Sydney – what exactly are you looking for in your “no explanation of doctrine that directly contradicts scripture”? That statement does not give us a clue as to what doctrines you are speaking about – all the explanations that you want regarding the Catholic Church and her doctrine is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church – there is no hiding of that – it is on line.
Jon has not made scriptural, valid points. He has, instead, written what he believes to be true about the Catholic Church, such as swearing allegiance to the pope, and worshiping Mary (in his part of the world). He has quoted man, Luther as well as Calvin as his authority – and yet says that the Church and her members practice idolatry. He states that sola scriptura (something that is not found in the bible) is fact because that was Luther’s position. None of Jon’s points are scriptural.
It would take me about a month to read the books that were suggested to you. I will be in prayer for you as you read them. That you would come to understand what the Catholic Church teaches, and not what you have “heard” that she teaches. I pray too that your husband will read them along side of you and that you will both have conversions of hearts to Christ in His fullest!
Ha, no problem, Lee.
Be sure to distinguish between arguments that attempt to refute Catholic teaching on the one hand, and on the other hand those arguments that merely defeat particular Catholic defenses of Catholic teaching. There’s a huge difference. I can offer many bogus proofs of how gravity works. Defeating those failed proofs does not mean we all suddenly begin to levitate. ;-)
To Rasquel: Your comment here has me confused. The arguments against the Catholic Church are misconceptions (and often outright lies). The misconceptions against the Catholic Church are and/or become arguments.
General Comments:
To sum up what I”ve been saying (and what other Catholics are saying):
We do not worship pieces of bread. We worship Christ in the Eucharist. At the Last Supper Jesus insitutated the Eucharist. He said “Take and eat, this IS my body. Take and drink, this IS my blood. Do this in memory of me.” (emphasis added). John 6 was a prelude to the Last Supper where the Eucharist is instituted, it’s an indepth explanation of the Eucharist. On the Road to Emmaus the disciples recognized Jesus in the breaking of the Bread. Why would all this be mentioned with such certainity if it wasn’t important? It wouldn’t make any sense for Jesus to say “Amen, amen I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.” (John 6:54-57). Generally Jesus didn’t say “Amen, amen” unless He was emphasizing a point. When the Jews argue amongst themselves about Jesus giving them His flesh to eat, and His blood to drink He doesn’t stop them and say it was symbolic. He reasserts the point. When those people who cannot accept it walk away, He doesn’t stop them there, either. Instead, He turns to His followers and asks them if they’re going to leave Him, too. They say they aren’t because they have come to believe in Him. In fact, Peter says: “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eteranl life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you aret he Holy One of God.” (John 6:68-69).
We do not worship Mary, we honor and know her as Blessed because Jesus honored her and filled with the Holy Spirit she declared that “every generation shall call me blessed.” (read Luke 1:26-55 — the Announcation that Mary would bear Jesus Christ and her visit to her cousin, Elizabeth). Jesus cares for her and honors her (In John the first recorded miracle Jesus performs is at the Wedding At Cana (John Chapter 2, verses 1-12), where not only does He recognize Mary in such a way that wasn’t done in that time, He also responds to her intercession on behalf of those hosting the wedding celebration by providing new wine to be served. From the Cross in John’s Gospel He made sure Mary would be cared for when He said: “Women behond your son.” and “Son, behold your mother.” (John 19:26-27).
We do not worship saints. We honor them because of their relationship with the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit–3 in 1). Many of the saints’ devotion to Christ has been well documented. St. Therese of Liseux said that she was very little, but wanted to do all for Christ, her bridegroom. St. Faustina K. talked about Jesus’s Divine Mercy in much of her diary writings. (those are just two examples, there’s many other examples).
People think Catholics don’t read their Bibles, but I read mine on a daily basis. I know several Catholics who have read theirs at least once, if not more. Catholics are encouraged to read their Bibles. I’ve heard several priests say it at various Masses, and I think some Deacons, too.
The Pope is not an anti-Christ, contrary to what Jon has said on here. If he was he wouldn’t teach anything having to do with the love of God and anything about Jesus being Merciful and being the way to Salvation. Those who are against Christ don’t speak in favor of Him.
God bless to all.
Nothing like being badgered. Thanks for that, ann marie.
Walking in sin, to me, means living in a repetitive pattern of sinful behavior, contrary to the Word of God. It is not simply committing a sin, but committing a pattern of behavior that dishonors God and the name of Christ.
I do not believe in “once saved, always saved.” I believe that we can choose, by our repeated pattern of sinful actions, to ultimately reject Christ by refusing to repent.
Also, you all say you do not “worship” Mary. The priest told me that at RCIA. But at my wedding they wanted me to kneel in front of a statue of Mary while someone sang about her and lay a bouquet of flowers at the statue’s feet. I said NO because it seemed like kneeling in front of an idol.
So here is my question because I am confused about your “honoring” Mary. What do you do solely in your worship of Christ that you do NOT do to Mary? You sing about Jesus. you sing about Mary. You pray to Jesus. You pray to Mary. You kneel before a cross with Jesus on it, you kneel before statues of Mary. You “hail” Mary, you name churches after her, you have visions of her etc… how exactly is Christ worshipped and Mary is not? This is a genuine question. To me it seems very much that you are worshipping her. you can tell me till you’re blue in the face that it is not worship but honor but how so? Please explain.
Janet, you are wrong. I have never heard a Pastor say that Mary didn’t matter. Didn’t God tell us to honor our mothers? Mary was the most honored woman of all time because she was given the blessing to carry Christ in her womb. WOW. No Baptist would ever EVER say she “didn’t matter”. But she was a sinner just like you and me. Even a really good person like Mother Theresa or Mary still has sin. “There is NONE righteous no NOT ONE.” She called her son her “Lord”. She needed salvation as well.
Did she ascend into heaven? Maybe. Elisha did. Maybe God took Mary directly as well. But the Bible never says. Doesn’t the Bible curse those who add to the Bible? “Well tradition tells us…” but God didn’t think it was important enough to include in His Word so how do we know? The Bible is written by men but inspired and preserved through the ages by God. God gave us the church but the church is made of corrupt sinners (we are!) Therefore He gave us His Word to know His way and His will “These things are written that YE MAY KNOW…” God’s word is for our reproof, for our doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16)
My brother-in-law who has just been ordained as a pastor (yesterday in fact) said that protestants have tradition too. But we are constantly re-examining our traditions against scripture and discard tradition when it does not match up. Therein is the problem I have with the Catholic church. Sure, you read Scripture. And sure, some of your doctrines are very very scriptural. But when your tradition runs amok of scripture you do not discard your tradition. You persist in falsehoods. And you have had bad doctrines based on tradition. A catholic above just pointed indulgences. You would have persisted in that if not for us protestants and our heretic Martin Luther!
Jon wrote:
Not true, Paladin! Where was the name-calling? I called the pope an antichrist, and I still do. That’s standard Protestantism.
Friend, do you even listen to yourself? “I don’t call names! The names I called are straight from what I take to be standard Protestantism!”
First of all, you have a very esoteric, privatised definition of “standard Protestantism”, if you think that the “standard” Protestant goes about while hurling epithets such as “antichrist”, “idolater”, and the like; you’ve settled yourself quite firmly on the fringe of non-Catholic Christianity, in doing so, and you embarrass non-Catholics of good-will everywhere, in doing so.
Secondly, your understanding of Catholicism is abysmal; you don’t have the faintest idea about even the most elementary rudiments of the thing you claim to be attacking, and a child could set you right on several of those points. If you presume to insult and disparage another group, at least intellectual honesty (if manners are lacking, as they decidedly are, in your case) should constrain you to LEARN about your target, before attacking… yes?
The reference to the mass as an accursed idolatry came from the highly regarded Heidelberg Catechism.
Ah. And my reference to the fact that your claims are utter nonsense come from the highly-regarded Catechism of the Catholic Church… and the highly-regarded Catechism of Trent (before that). Surely you see that this claim of yours settles (and proves) nothing of use?
My first comment was absolutely necessary, whether or not Roman Catholics happen to find it rude.
I see. So… aside from the fact that this “necessity” was firmly and completely in your own mind (i.e. your raw opinion), you’re admitting, at least, that your “not true! Where was the name-calling?” was nonsense? Apparently, you’re now claiming that such name-calling and rudeness was “necessary”. (Would you consider it well and good if some inflammatory, rude, and ill-intentioned Catholic were to find it “necessary” to call you a heretical, pernicious reprobate who was adequately described by 2 Timothy 4:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:16, and anathematized several times over by the decrees of the Holy Council of Trent? Have some sense, man!)
The remaining comments followed partly out of courtesy to those interacting with me
(*wry look*) If you’ll pardon me for saying so: your “courtesy”, friend, falls a bit short of being exquisite and refined.
and partly out of my desire to defend the Christian faith.
No one is asking you to refrain from defending your best understanding of the Christian Faith; all we ask is that you add at least a few other tools to your debating “kit”, aside from your well-worn and solitary flame-thrower. It’s quite possible to discuss differences without throwing inflammatory epithets, ignorantly condemning good and holy men (such as the Pope), and the like.
Care to try again, with a bit more maturity and self-control? Surely even your own variety of Christianity consists of more than mere condemnations of everyone and everything else, yes?
Well Lee, I guess specifically things like confession to a priest (veil was ripped in the temple at Christ’s death… we can now directly approach God. Why the confession to a priest?) purgatory (give me Bible verses that speak of purgatory. Doesn’t the Bible say to be “absent from the body is to be present with the Lord for the believer (2 Cor 5:8)
I asked the one about Mary in a post above. How bout salvation? How exactly does one reach heaven? I’ve never heard a consistent answer from Catholics I have conversed with about that.
Interested to see what you say.
I do not need a conversion of my heart but I will take your prayers! I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He is my Lord and Savior. I have turned from my sin and called upon the name of the Lord and I am saved. (Romans 10:13)
But I do pray for my husband. Every day. He has no relationship with Christ. He has no peace. No one can have peace who lives their life apart from God and he knows it. He says so. Unfortunately he has a “wait and see” attitude.
I think it was interesting Gerard said I could not ask “garden variety” Catholics my questions and expect a correct response. What a sad state then for the Catholic church when most of her members have no clue what they are to believe and cannot teach others like myself their beliefs. I will say you can ask any “garden variety” born again believer (notice I did not say protestant because not all protestants are saved/born again) and any born again believer would be able to tell you how to get to heaven.
Hi Sydney.
“So here is my question because I am confused about your “honoring” Mary. What do you do solely in your worship of Christ that you do NOT do to Mary? You sing about Jesus. you sing about Mary. You pray to Jesus. You pray to Mary. You kneel before a cross with Jesus on it, you kneel before statues of Mary. You “hail” Mary, you name churches after her, you have visions of her etc… how exactly is Christ worshipped and Mary is not? This is a genuine question. To me it seems very much that you are worshipping her. you can tell me till you’re blue in the face that it is not worship but honor but how so? Please explain. ”
Offer sacrifice. We offer the sacrifice of the mass to God and God alone. I would argue that none of the examples you gave constitute worship. We sing about the US, but that doesn’t mean we worship it. Petitiary prayer, the only prayer that Catholics pray to Mary, is simply asking her to pray to Jesus for us. We ask each other that here on earth all the time, so even though Mary is dead, she is alive in Christ, and we believe she can pray for us just like you can pray for me, so I would say that isn’t worship either. We kneel before royalty, and men usually kneel down before their fiances when proposing, so I would say that doesn’t constitute worship. I think it is pretty clear that the other things, while bestowing great honor and affection, do not constitute worship as we know many examples of buildings being named after people.
The big difference is in the sacrificial offering of the mass. I once heard someone say that this is such a difficult thing for non-Catholic Christians because they don’t actually do anything that constitutes worshiping God! They see all our venerations as worship because THEY have confused veneration with worship. Now I doubt that that is true in general, nor would I be willing to defend it, but it at least touches on the more fundamental difference which is how we understand worship.
Why the sacrificial offering of the mass then? Wasn’t Christ THE ultimate and final sacrifice? “It is FINISHED” He cried yet Catholics are still offering Him up at every mass then aren’t they?
“Doesn’t the Bible say to be “absent from the body is to be present with the Lord for the believer (2 Cor 5:8)”
No. It says (KJV)
8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
St Paul say that he would RATHER be absent from the body and be present with the Lord. I think this was started by Hank Hangraff or someone, but many Protestants misquote this verse. There isn’t a version of teh bible that I am aware of that translates it like that.
Okay, he would RATHER because he knows when you are absent from the body you are present with the Lord!
In Philippians 1:23 (part of which is on my dad’s gravestone) Paul says that he is torn between continuing his earthly work and departing and being WITH CHRIST which is far better.
He never says “Well I want to depart and hopefully not end up in purgatory but maybe eventually I will get to Christ…”
He has assurance that when he departs his body he will be with Christ.
So in the Jewish tradition, not only is there teh slaughtering of the sacrifice, but then there is the presentation of teh sacrafice. You couldn’t just slughter the animal and walk away, you had to offer teh sacrifice or present it to God. The crucifixion was the slaughtering. But that isn’t everything. Jesus needed to be offered to God. Otherwise, why did he rise from teh dead? Doesn’t hid rising from the dead undermine the fact that he was supposed to be slaughtered as a sacrifice to God for our sins? Well, of course not because the next part of sacrifice is presentation. Jesus rose from teh dead and ascended into heaven to present himself to teh Father to complete the sacrifice. There is no time in heaven, it is a continual NOW. Thus, teh sacrifice of the mass is not teh slaughtering of Christ, but Christ offering himself to teh Father again and again and again. Since the offering exists in an eternal NOW, it is one and teh same sacrifice; the offering part of teh sacrifice. We believe this fulfills the prophecy of Malacji 3:11
11 My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty.
That sacrifice is the mass, offered everyday in very part of teh world to God.
“Okay, he would RATHER because he knows when you are absent from the body you are present with the Lord!”
Yes, but now he doesn’t say that. I would rather be at home and eating a sandwich. The conjunction with the word “and” does not imply that in any and all cases both pieces held together by “and” always must happen together.
But alas, I must go. I will leave it up to teh other Catholics to clean up my mess for the evening. God love you all.
Sydney said: So here is my question because I am confused about your “honoring” Mary. What do you do solely in your worship of Christ that you do NOT do to Mary? (Please note: I’m changing a bit of the order of what you said because of the order I’m answering it, please undersand I’m trying to go step by step and it’s not meant as an insult to you). Sydney said: You pray to Jesus. You pray to Mary.
Pray means to ask. We ask Mary to be with us like we’d ask a mother we have a close relationship with or a friend we have a close relationship with to help us and be with us. The majority of the Hail Mary can be found in Luke Chapter 1, beginning with the first words, “Hail Mary” spoken by the angel. Elizabeth says “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” (we add the word “Jesus” because Jesus is the fruit of Mary’s womb). “Holy Mary, Mother of God” Mary is made Holy by God, although she is NOT God. She is the mother of God because Catholics believe that God is 3 persons in 1–The Holy Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit (we believe this is a great mystery that cannot be fully understood in this life). “Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our deaths.” This is a request to ask her to pray for us (as you’d ask a friend or anyone you do ask to pray for you) and “pray for us sinners” because we do sin. We do do things that aren’t right because human beings aren’t perfect.
Sydney said: You sing about Jesus. you sing about Mary.
What songs do you object to? There’s been songs sung about different people. Songs sung about the wind, about the rain, about love, about happiness, about sadness. There’s all kinds of songs out there. We use very different words in our singing to Jesus than we do for Mary and the intentions are different, too.
Sydney said: You kneel before a cross with Jesus on it, you kneel before statues of Mary.
Kneeling is not strictly worship. I kneel down sometimes in front of my son to help him with something. People have knelt in front of royalty. Kneeling is also a way to get into a referent/respectful attitude and we revere Mary because of who she is. Revering someone is NOT worshiping them or putting them on the same category as God.
Sydney Said: You “hail” Mary, you name churches after her, you have visions of her etc… how exactly is Christ worshipped and Mary is not?
In Luke Chapter 1, verse 28 the Angel of the Lord comes to Mary and greets her: “Hail, favored one.” “Hail” is simply a greeting and a form of respect. Not a form of worship.
Buildings have been named after famous people and all kinds of people.
Naming Churches after Mary is a form of respect and honor not worship.
Having visons of Mary isn’t worship. Moses and Elijiah appeared to Jesus at the Transfiguration of the Lord. (Matthew 17:3). Mary generally appears to people who strive to have a close relationship with her son to offer comfort and instruction to draw people closer to Christ Jesus.
Sydney Said: This is a genuine question. To me it seems very much that you are worshipping her. you can tell me till you’re blue in the face that it is not worship but honor but how so? Please explain.
I took your question as genuine and I appreciate that you’re willing to pursue the resources we’ve posted so hopefully you can gain answers and understanding to your questions. Thank you for that.
In terms of how we honor Mary…through those things I mentioned above are honor because we recognize that she played in an important role in Salvation History and that Jesus Himself honored and provided for her (as I mentioned about John Chapter 2–The Wedding At Cana and in John Chapter 19 about Jesus being on the Cross and providing for Mary before He died).
I haven’t read it but there is a book by Scott Hahn called “Hail Holy Queen” that looks like it explains some things about Mary (and what I know about Scott Hahn is that he’s very good about explaining things) He also apparently has other Marian explanations available: http://www.scotthahn.com/mary.html (I’ve heard a little bit of Scott Hahn’s talks, but I haven’t read everything he’s written or heard all his talks, but I understand he’s very good at explanations).
The Catholic Answers Website often has some articles available you can check there as well.
Bobby 4:19 pm: Wow. You’ve just given me a great idea.
Worship of the host should be in substance only, not accidents. Ergo, no obvious physical manifestation that could be seen by the eye as worship. We Protestants will merely understand that anything you happen to be doing with the host actually IS worship — no matter how unlike worship or even contrary to anyone’s idea of worship it might seem.
Now that’s being faithful to the Catholic intellectual tradition, ya gotta admit.
;-)
Like Bobby said we don’t offer Mary or the saints sacrifices. We don’t proclaim they’re God. We don’t praise them for creating Creation or giving us graces that come from God alone. We do NOT believe Mary is the source of our salvation and we do NOT we believe the saints are our source of Salvation, we believe Jesus is the source of our Salvation. We thank them for walking with us on our journey to Christ (striving every day to get closer to Christ and through Christ to God the Father). We talk to them and ask them for things just like we’d ask any family or friend for things or help. But we believe the direct source of that help comes from God.
To pray means simply to ask or request (that’s in the most simplistic terms). You can see what I’m saying by clicking here and reading the definition of “pray” from the Oxford Online Dictionary.
“It would be easier for the world to exist without the sun than without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”
-Saint Pio of Pietrelcina
Sydney wrote:
Paladin… no man shall pluck believers out of the Father’s hand.
That is quite true. But the Father leaves us free to JUMP out of His Hand, or to refuse to be in His Hand in the first place. Surely you agree with that?
How can you live not knowing you have assurance of salvation?
It’s called the virtue of Holy Hope. Hope (cf. 1 Corinthians 13, etc.) is the free choice to believe that God will be faithful… that He will uphold His end of the Covenant (cf. 2 Timothy 2:13)… without us mistakenly going further, into the error which states that God will save us despite ourselves, no matter how much we might sin after a hypothetical “once saved, always saved” point (which is nowhere to be found in Scripture). We are certainly saved, in that Christ paid our debt fully, reconciled us to the Father, and opened the gates of Heaven for us; but God does not force us, at any point in our lives, to walk through those gates. We must persevere to the end, in order to be saved, and Our Lord Jesus said that, exactly, at least three separate times in the Gospel of St. Matthew, alone (Matthew 10:22, 13:13, 24:13). St. Paul was not “assured” of his salvation in the sense of thinking that he could not possibly lose it under any circumstances: “Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” (1 Corinthians 9:25-27, RSV) Yes, we are certainly guaranteed the OPPORTUNITY for salvation… and God has guaranteed us, through Christ, that we will always have the grace needed to persevere… if only we ask Him, and if only we choose to remain faithful. But the choice is ours; God will not take that free choice from us… ever.
To put it another way: holy hope is the virtue by which we trust in God’s promises, His mercy, and His Justice; I have a divinely inspired and holy HOPE that I will be saved, given that I cooperate with His Grace throughout the rest of my life. It is not fear that keeps me from “resting on my laurels” with a fictitious “once and for all certainty” of my salvation; rather, it is my love of God which prevents me from attributing such an absurd idea to Him. I do not doubt the power of the Gospel; I merely put more trust in Christ’s Church than I do in the errors of certain 15th-century (or later) men.
You sound like a muslim when you say there is no assurance. They slave away and have no assurance Allah will accept them at the end. No thank you!
I’m afraid you’ve not even described the Muslim beliefs correctly! For example: any devout Muslim believes that, so long as he fulfills the five-fold duties (“pillars”) of Islam, he will attain paradise. They also believe that any Muslim who dies in the context of a holy war (“jihad”) will immediately attain paradise.
God does not leave us to wonder. His spirit whispers to ours to let us know we are His.
Of course. But he does not force us to be His, any more than I “forced” my wife to be mine, or any more than she “forced” me to be hers. If we are not free to choose or depart, we are not even free to love Him (which is nothing less than a free choice to sacrifice of oneself for the best good of another Person). God wants children, not will-deprived puppets.
We cannot be spiritually “unadopted” from God’s family.
No… but we can spiritually kill ourselves; we can be DEAD adopted children, whether physically or eternally. Scripture, Tradition, and even common sense make that abundantly clear; God does not save anyone against his will.
Once you’re under the blood you are under the blood and no sin you commit is too great to “undo” the redemption that has been done.
In one sense, that’s true (i.e. the eternal price for all sin has been paid, once and for all; see above). In another sense, that’s not true (i.e. that price will never “pay” our own debt unless we appropriate it, and remain in His grace). It’s rather a mistake to think too much in terms of a legal onus, anyway, when speaking of salvation; salvation consists precisely in being united to God and His children for all eternity in Heaven; and we cannot be united to Him perfectly while continuing to reject Him and to sin. It’s as impossible as trying to make a square circle.
This is not a license to sin but a comfort when we mess up… which guess what? We all do because we are ALL sinners and none is righteous no not one!
Of course (I’ll leave the Blessed Virgin Mary aside, for the moment, for the sake of this conversation.) But think of it this way: Catholics find the Sacrament of Penance/Confession (in addition to the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, through which Christ also forgives sins) to be a tremendous comfort and consolation, by which their sins can be forgiven by Christ, working through His priests as He assured us (cf. John 20:23)… time after time, sin after sin, fall after fall… seventy times seventy times seventy times [etc.]. You didn’t think we trusted the Sacraments because of their own sake, did you? We trust them precisely because Christ instituted them and works through them!
Nonetheless, this video was offensive.
I’d gently offer the idea that you were offended because you didn’t understand it properly; you misunderstood it to be idolatry (which would certainly be offensive), but it was not actually so. I (and others) hope to make that clearer to you (and to Jon, et al.) as this discussion (and any other given discussion on this) unfolds.
Tommy D says:
June 27, 2011 at 8:00 am
I read John Salza’s book, The Bibilical Basis for the Catholic Church, which I highly recommend. His explanation of the connection between faith and works was amazing.
Thanks to all for the reading recommendations. I just picked up Salza’s “The Biblical Basis for the Eucharist” and it looks like it will be interesting.
Sydney,
Thanks for your reply. I hope you find the answers you are looking for. Relevant Radio is an awesome resource. Any books, tapes, radio programs, etc., by Protestants-turned-Catholic are going to be very effective in addressing your concerns because they’ve been in your place. God bless.
Thanks for his beautiful post, Jill.
The comments have developed as one might expect in a fallen world…
Please allow me to contribute my own quick thoughts, backed up with prayer, because I feel moved to defend Jesus, Who is the single strongest influence in my life.
I am a Catholic because I love Jesus and believe in Him, and after years of study became convinced that He wanted me to be in the Church He founded.
I believe He is present in the Eucharist, as the earliest Christians did and still do, because I take Jesus at His word. The Eucharist has always been a hard teaching to accept, since Jesus clearly laid it out in John 6, after the miraculous feeding of the multitudes.
I am not interested in debate with any other Christians. Others can do that better than I. It grieves me that believers are separated, as this is not the will of Jesus, who prayed that all would remain one, in John 17.
With the grace of God, I would prefer death over rejecting Jesus in the Eucharist. I am thrilled at this post, and the work of the good friars to bring people the fullness of faith found in the Catholic Church. While not perfect as long as I am a member, I survey this world and find the most goodness and truth in the Church.
It all comes down to authority. God either works through the Church He established, which is the Catholic Church, or He works through some guy at some church that started last week who has the “real” answer.
I’ll stick with God and His Church.
No, I’ve read the Koran and I have former muslim (now born again Christian) friends. Only those who die in holy war are assured of heaven. You MUST obey Allah to get to heaven but it is no guarantee. I stated it correctly.
If NO MAN can pluck us out of the Father’s hand I would assume that would include ourselves.
What you just described “holy hope” sounds like works based faith.
my brother-in-law read some of the remarks and said this to me:
In keeping with the Jewish tradition, the sacrifice was presented not by individuals, but by the high priest–once a year on the day of atonement. Our sacrifice was made once and for all by Christ who is also our high priest (Heb. 4:14-17).
I’ll have to reflect a bit on Malachi 1:11 as quoted below. I’ve not considered this as a Catholic justification for the mass before. At first blush, I would see this as likely an unfulfilled aspect of prophecy (if it actually is prophetic) which will be fulfilled during the Millennial Reign of Christ which is yet to come, and ever knee will bow and every tongue shall confess (Phil. 2:11).
The real question that Catholics must ask themselves is…
The Catholic Church teaches that a catholic must partake of the Eucharist as a means of obtaining grace. This is contrary to the simple gospel of faith through grace alone. What are you relying on? simple grace or grace with works added to it…
Regarding “works alone”, here is an interesting take on Luther’s promotion of this idea which obviously caused a great rift among Christians.
* * * * * *
from
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/faith_vs_works.htm
Martin Luther adds the word “alone” after the word “faith” in the Bible
Someting that most Evangelicals aren’t aware of is that when Luther left the church and wrote his own Bible, he added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28
Luther added an extra word to his Bible:
“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith [ALONE] apart from observing the law.
Revelation 22:18-19 says:
When challenged about this Martin Luther responded:
* * * * * *
Hey Sydney –
I haven’t read the whole discussion because I am packing for two back-to-back business trips AND working all night on expense reports, but I saw that you asked for book recommendations. I am not Catholic and am actually agnostic but I recommend Peter Kreeft for all things Catholic. I never feel talked down to by him, and I find him at once intelligent and easy to understand.
He has a book called A Handbook of Christian Apologetics, and then there is another called A Handbook of Catholic Apologetics. I have only read the first, but it’s my understanding that the second is pretty much the same as the first, plus some Protestant-friendly arguments explaining some of the main points of contention with Catholicism. So you might want to find that at the library and skip to the Catholic parts, unless you want to follow the step by step logic he uses to argue in favor of the existence of God and the validity of Christianity (it does all kind of build on each other so it might become helpful to see the whole thought process; I’m not sure.)
I’m sorry for your loss. I lost two people this week as well. It is heart-wrenching. Please take care, and be kind to yourself.
“In keeping with the Jewish tradition, the sacrifice was presented not by individuals, but by the high priest–once a year on the day of atonement.”
YES! This is exactly what it is based on. When the high priest entered once a year into teh holy of holies, he had to slaughter the lamb and then present it to God. This is why he had to wear a bell and be tied on a rope- in case God did not accept the offering, God would strike him dead, and since no one else was allowed to enter into teh holy of holies, he had to be dragged out. Christ is our high priest, eternally dwelling in the holy of holies, presenting himself to teh Father on our behalf.
Sydney
Jesus commanded the Apostles to “Do this in Memory of Me” referring to the partaking of the Breaking of the Bread.(The Eucharist as Catholics call it). After the resurrection, the disciples from the Road to Emmaus (my favorite post Resurrection Gospel reading, btw) only recognized him in the BREAKING OF THE BREAD.
As for Purgatory, nothing UNCLEAN can enter Heaven. Purgatory is a way to be ‘purged’ of any very minor sins you may have died with.
The real question that Catholics must ask themselves is…
The Catholic Church teaches that a catholic must partake of the Eucharist as a means of obtaining grace. This is contrary to the simple gospel of faith through grace alone. What are you relying on? simple grace or grace with works added to it…
Sydney, there is nothing in our belief about the Eucharist that is contrary to scripture. In fact, we are given this command by Christ himself: “”Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” (Jn 6:53) Grace is the life of our soul, so yes it seems the Eucharist is necessary as a means of obtaining grace. That is why we teach it – because it’s in the Bible.
If you are going to call even the simple commands of Christ to us works, why do you not regard accepting Christ as your savior as a “work”? After all, it’s something you have to do to gain salvation! The reason you do it of course, is because it is Christ’s command, not because you think it is meritorious. It has nothing to do with righteousness by works. The Eucharist is a free gift of God given to us, just as all grace is. We only need to believe and accept it.
I want to give a link to another terrific site started by John Martignoni who was some podcasts explaing why sola fide and “once saved, always saved,” are completely unscriptural doctrines. He is a Catholic who knows his stuff. Come to think of it, he has one on Purgatory too, with all the Bible verses to explain it. And one on Mary!
http://www.biblechristiansociety.com.
Click on the “free MP3 downloads.”
I am praying for your husband’s conversion. It is so sad a situation; maybe the sorrows you are both going through will finally wake him up! (Do you ever read C.S. Lewis, by the way? – I was just reminded of his saying “Pain is God’s megaphone to arouse a deaf world”).
Sydney,
I’ll try to get some more info to you tomorrow; bedtime arrives!
I’m nowhere near as well versed as the others here (including you). But to Sydney, regarding the “faith” alone issue. I think of it this way – there’s a lot involved in true “faith.” We are told that the way is narrow and that there will be those who come before God in the end having professed Him with their lips but not their hearts and He will say “I never knew you”. We are told many times in the bible that if you do xyz or don’t do xyz then your are not truly living as Christ has asked.
I think Paladin’s explanation is much much better than mine, but I’ve never heard any compelling explanation based on the entirety of scripture to suggest that there is a single moment of faith and salvation that cannot be undone. Rather it is a lifetime of faith (lived faith) that saves us. It’s choosing Christ – always.
Alexandra… I am sorry for your loss as well. :-(
Sydney,
” think it was interesting Gerard said I could not ask “garden variety” Catholics my questions and expect a correct response. What a sad state then for the Catholic church when most of her members have no clue what they are to believe and cannot teach others like myself their beliefs. I will say you can ask any “garden variety” born again believer (notice I did not say protestant because not all protestants are saved/born again) and any born again believer would be able to tell you how to get to heaven.”
Considering that Protestantism has degenerated into 30,000+ Churches, were you making that statement about Catholics in jest? Sure not all Catholics get it right. Some screw things up royally, teaching not only simple error, but genuine heresy. Specifically, I’m thinking about John Huss, Henry VIII, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and the rest of the reformation crew. As I understand it, you look up to some of those Catholics who didn’t explain things well at all.
If you accept the literal sense of the scriptures, then you must accept Jesus saying that not all who call Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom, but only the one who does the will of the Father. You must accept the last judgement scene in Matthew where Jesus spells out the criteria for entrance, which are the corporal (bodily) works of mercy. You must accept James saying:
“24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.”
That quote in context from James 2:
“ 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.“
Your view of faith and works is incomplete at best, Sydney. You need to look at the consistent message about this in scripture. That Catholic Church has a very well-developed exegesis and dogma concerning the interrelatedness of faith and works. Luther was unrefined in this area, and his pride blinded him to the literal sense of the scriptures.
Janet: Luther was wrong about many things — certainly about a supposed James/Paul rift on faith and works (there’s none whatsoever). On the other hand, Luther’s misdemeanors pale in comparison to some of Rome’s felonies of the time.
There’s plenty of criticism to go around when we — good grief, there’s a firefly here in the house . . .
Gerard, sure protestants get it wrong. I do not consider myself a “protestant” nor do I think someone is automatically correct about all things spiritual just because they are “protestant”. I am a born again Christian. Not all protestants are born again. I absolutely believe that the only people going to heaven are those who have had spiritual rebirth and spiritual rebirth has absolutely nothing to do with denomination.
I was making the point that any born again Christian would be able to explain salvation but yet ROMAN CATHOLICS (I am not talking about different catholic sects but about Roman Catholics who all follow Rome and are supposed to be united and like minded as stated here on previous threads by other Roman Catholics ) that I have talked to have a gazillion different thoughts and beliefs. There is no consensus among them. When I brought this up you told me that I could not understand Catholic doctrine from “garden variety” Catholics. If Catholics are supposed to be united then why don’t the “garden variety” Catholics understand their own doctrines? Somehow the Catholic church is not doing a very good job of teaching its doctrines to its own followers. You can come back with arguments about 30,000 different protestant sects but as I already explained not all protestants are heaven bound. There is such a thing as false religion. Some protestant faiths I believe fall into this. I can only attest to born again Christians that I have met who are in many different denominations.
I think the vast number of nominal Catholics who showcase astounding illiteracy are analogous to the thousands of Protestant sects.
This is not a beauty contest. The apostolic church of the first century had no fewer problems than Protestantism, and the epistles sometimes read like a devoted Catholic’s critique of Protestantism. Or a devoted Protestant’s critique of the Roman church. Minus the vitriol. ;-)
If it were a beauty contest, we’d all lose.
And it’s a good thing, too!
Sydney Says: There is no consensus among them.
Depends on if you’re talking to a Catholic who’s faithful to everything the Church teaches. If they aren’t faithful to Catholic doctorine, you’re not going to get a “consensus” from them.
On this thread I haven’t seen any of us Catholics disagreeing with each other on matters of doctorine or what the Catholic Church teaches. We might not all use the exact same words to explain said doctorine, but I think all the Catholics on here for this thread have been in agreement on the Eucharist, Mary, and the saints–which have been the main topics of discussion on this thread. I haven’t seen any of us Catholics on this thread arguing about Salvation or what the Church teaches regarding it, but maybe you experienced that elsewhere.
God bless and hope things are going better on your end.
Back to the original topic/premise of the video…isn’t what the Friar is doing considered to be “Benediction of the Blessed Sacramnet” ?????
Help us out here, Bobby !
Regardless, I think the entire thing is awesome !
Sydney – although I have only skimmed through the answers, I believe that there have been answers written, scriptures quoted by others in regard to confession and to purgatory – I could be wrong – it is late and I am just home now.
However,now, let me ask you this – how are you assured of your salvation?
By what authority do you have that assurance?
And – by what authority do you have in your decision that not all Catholics will go to heaven, and not all Christians will go to heaven?
My salvation is dependent on loving Jesus Christ, proclaiming Him as Lord, and doing as He commands…to love one another as He has loved us. To put Him above all things, to be obedient in receiving the sacraments of the Church that He established here on earth and to be under His authority.
God did not leave us orphans. Jesus left us with His promise of eternal salvation through His Church, which He established. Christ prayed that “they would all be one” for He knew that there would be many divisions. He did not found many churches – he founded One and it is Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic. He set up a system where in the Church would be guided through all eternity and He promised us the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. So – to say that Christ’s Church is wrong, is to say that Christ did not really mean what He said – that His Church would stand for all eternity.
The first pope, Peter, oh my goodness – he denied Christ three times, he however, was chosen by Christ to head the Church and to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Peter was a mere mortal, like all of us. After Peter’s death, Linus was pope, and the lineage has been unbroken . . . there have been scandals in the Church, yes, among them, popes, but Christ never fails, Christ never lied – He told us He would not abandon us and gave us His Church. Today we have a brilliant pope, who (just in case you are wondering) I do not pray to, nor do I swear allegiance to, nor do I worship. [I have been told that we Catholics do all those things] Pope Benedict is a brilliant scholar and has spoken often about salvation and faith and reason. You may find his writings on line.
There have been rogues in the Church (Martin Luther was one), there have been Catholics who have not understood their faith – but that is not because it was not there for them to understand, it is because they, for whatever reason did not take the time to learn their faith.
Oh and the GREATEST thing about being Catholic, aside from the sacraments – I do not have to worry about anyone’s salvation except my own. I do not have to judge others … as to where they will spend eternity. That is not my job – it is God’s!
Mike – no, I do not believe the friars were doing a Benediction of the Eucharist in that piece. The words are not correct and there was no incense. There is a form for Corpus Christi that we used this past Sunday – and I do not know if that is what they used, but it is not the Benediction of the Eucharist unless there are many forms, and that could be.
Somehow the Catholic church is not doing a very good job of teaching its doctrines to its own followers.
His Church has always done its job of teaching its doctrines. Church followers have not always done a very good job of listening, reflecting, praying, and learning.
Could someone please give me the Biblical reference for purgatory? I would like to look it up and read it for myself. Thank you.
Praxedes: No, the Catholic church — like any other organization (it is MORE than an organization — but not less. That’s an incarnational view so don’t argue with it) has often erred egregiously in its teaching. Santería exists because of Catholic failure in this regard. Don’t excuse it, don’t explain it away, don’t whitewash it — just admit it. The church failed to address superstitious enthusiasms, and dramatically failed to counter dramatic syncretism.
That’s just one quick example.
The New Testament church was perfectly capable of failing — even its leadership. The New Testament is rife with examples. It’s one reason we even HAVE the New Testament. And the contemporary era is rife with examples of church leadership engaging in vile sexual abuse of children.
I am NOT saying that to single out the Roman church for unique criticism. I am NOT trying to have a beauty contest between Protestantism and Catholicism, both of which have failed both God and man in dramatic ways over their span of years. I AM saying that to deny the flatly dishonest claim that the church has always done its job of teaching its doctrines, much less practicing its virtues.
Having a wonderful catechism and pointing to stellar examples of success means little to those who learn inappropriate physical lessons from priests before they are of age to understand whatever spiritual lessons they might take away from the same priests.
It is no defense of the church to deny that it is populated by redeemed sinners who still fail. It is false comfort to church members to hope that such a defense will ward off opposition from without or corruption from within.
Defend the church honestly — not foolishly.
This post is not an attack — and it won’t feel like one to anyone who knows — and laments with penitent heart — the too-often-truth that God’s church is often as unfaithful a bride as Israel could be. It’s NOT just laypersons. It’s authorities as well, at times, and everyone knows that.
Good morning Carla, I found a site that talks about some Biblical references for purgatory. I grew up learning about purgatory, wasn’t exposed to anything different and never thought much further about it, thinking all Christians believed in purgatory. I read a book some years ago entitled Called to Question by Sister Joan Chittister (who is considered controversial to many Catholics) that I think you would enjoy if you ever get a chance to read it.
I enjoy the debates here at Jill’s, feel welcome and at home and learn so much from all the Christians and prolifers that comment here. I have great respect for everyone here and think of and pray for the regulars often.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp
Lee: How many of Luther’s 95 theses were wrong as critiques of the church in his day?
In Israel, “rogues” were called “prophets,” and they generally pointed wayward folks in the direction of God’s commandments during times of apostasy and such.
The prophets were not perfect, and neither was Luther. But without them, imperfections that can be institutionalized among redeemed sinners would remain.
How many of Luther’s 95 theses were wrong as critiques of the church in his day?
I’m going to be slightly unkind and imply something not because I wish to insult you, but to make a point: Sometimes sheep wish prophets would keep their zeal to themselves. A nice green meadow — we can avoid the weeds. Why raise a fuss?
Thank goodness the oft-prophetic John Paul II was zealous for truth and virtue not withstanding opposition of that sort from within his own church! Dittos for M.T. et al.!
It is no defense of the church to deny that it is populated by redeemed sinners who still fail.
Rasqual, I absolutely agree. And I would never state otherwise. I should have talked about The Eucharist in my 6:07am post. That was what I was focusing on in my head and heart when I referred to the Church, not on the immense failures of humans, both lay and leaders. My bad.
We do certainly all know how humans in the Catholic Church, myself included, have been completely and inexcusably unfaithful, but Christ in the Eucharist has never and will never be.
“It is no defense of the church to deny that it is populated by redeemed sinners who still fail. ”
Heck, some may even not be redeemed!
Parish the thought! ;-)
Jesus left us with His promise of eternal salvation through His Church, which He established.
This one little sentence reveals a lot about the difference in Catholic and Protestant belief systems.
From the reading of Scripture, my understanding is that Jesus Christ Himself is our salvation – not the Church He established.
http://www.bible-knowledge.com/what-is-salvation/
Buh dum, ching!
Jon at 10:55 PM:
I’m not trying to blame you for your mis-statements –-you are simply depending on those who were already leading you astray in the sixteenth century; but you really need to learn the golden rule of any correct ecclesiastical scholarship–go to the original source, the Word of God, the Bible.
Jon, I can only say that I go directly to the source with every single Eucharistic celebration: Jesus, the Incarnate WORD. He IS the Word.
Kel, I don’t have too much time today to go too in depth with this, but I guess the way I would say it is that we DO believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. But we also believe (and possibly incorrectly) that Jesus himself established a Church through which he would offer his means of salvation. So Jesus is the only way, but whatever he commands or wants us to do to be saved, we should do it, right? (I’m sure you would at least agree with that principle). Jesus is the only way, but because Jesus is the only way, that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t ever pray anymore or read my bible anymore. Jesus commands us to pray, he commands us to read our bible. And so Catholics just take it a step further and believe that he established a Church which he commands us to be a part of and partake in in order to apply his graces.
So from the perspective, I don’t think it is that controversial. Whatever Jesus wants me to do, I want to do it, whether that be joining a Church, living a certain philosophy, just being a good person, reading just teh bible, whatever. We simply disagree on WHAT it is that Jesus requires of us, not whether or not he is the only way. God love you.
this made me cry! Love it!
When I say I don’t have too much time today, BTW, I mean that I’m just not able to get into a defense of why we believe that Jesus established a Church…
Bobby, no disrespect intended here, but I have been around a lot of very devoted Catholics, and I’ve heard them say things like, “I am so in love with the Church,” etc. What you say and how you say it MATTERS. Small alterations in phraseology can make the difference between Truth and heresy, wouldn’t you agree?
Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh. So, the Bible is not just any book.
Yes, I understand that Catholics “believe that [He] established a Church which [He] commands us to be a part of and partake in in order to apply [His] graces.”
It is my understanding that when we accept Christ, we become part of His body, which is the Church. My faith is not in any church or denomination, but in the Person of Christ.
Please re-read what I quoted and you will likely see where I take issue with the statement.
I should not be surprised by the denials of so many Roman Catholics as to my understanding of their doctrine, but I am realizing that of course they will portray their doctrine in a positive light. The accusations I’ve made thus far in this thread are as follows:
(1) Roman Catholics make too much of the mother, the Church, and too little of her bridegroom, the Word made flesh. (That’s subjectively stated, but I don’t think anybody made an issue of it, either. And I might add the obvious corollary that Roman Catholics make too little of the Father.)
(2) What unites the Roman Catholic Church is the papacy, a completely unbiblical office by which a mere man claims to represent the one mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ. The pope usurps Christ’s authority (he claims to be Christ’s earthly representative), and Rome’s teachings ends up taking precedence over the Bible, the Word of God. Thus the pope is an antichrist.
(3) The Roman Catholic Church takes us back to the materialistic religion of Old Testament religion. She denies the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, the spiritual character of worship, the priesthood of every believer, and–most of all–the sole final authority of the Word of God, the Bible. (I might modify or delete that charge about the “enlightenment of the Holy Spirit” now; it was mostly a transition to the next things.)
(4) Roman Catholics still worship Mary, saints, and pieces of bread. They also keep images, pictures, and relics to help them to worship.
(5) Roman Catholics do not actually drink any wine when they participate in the mass.
(6) The mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.
(7) Roman Catholics end up denying the gospel. In their scheme, salvation does not come only by the atoning work and perfect life of the Lord Jesus but also by our own good works and the good works of saints. Purgatory also helps.
The last accusation is the main one. As the apostle Paul said, “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:8) This accusation seemed to have been Martin Luther’s main contention after rediscovering the truth of Romans at the end of his long agonizing journey in search of certainty of forgiveness. Sola Gratia! Sola Fides! Sola Scriptura!
However, the second-last accusation is my reason for having got involved in this thread. The provocation was the post itself, posted by a Protestant. This is not Lifesitenews, after all. Anyway, I am a Christian first and a pro-lifer second.
If I have time and a cooperative Internet connection, I will try yet to respond to those who have responded to me and tried to deal with the actual arguments themselves. Indeed, I have already tried to do so, but there were too many to respond to.
“She denies the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, the spiritual character of worship, the priesthood of every believer, and–most of all–the sole final authority of the Word of God, the Bible.”
I would be very interested in seeing where the Catholic Church teaches a denial of the Holy Spirit and the “spiritual character of worship.” Not even sure what that last one means… we do deny that the bible is the sole final authority. As for the priesthood of all believers
Paragraph 1268 in teh CCC says
1268 … Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.
“(5) Roman Catholics do not actually drink any wine when they participate in the mass.”
Wait, what the… huh? I don’t even know what this is supposed to prove, but Catholics partake of wine at mass. However, we believe it has become the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus, so from a Catholic perspective, it is true that we do not drink wine at mass. I don’t know if you’re affirming the real presence of Christ under the apperence of wine at the mass or not, and frankly I don’t know how drinking or not wine at mass counts for or against Catholics…
“(6) The mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.”
Did you not see that I pointed out earlier the distinction between the slaughter of the sacrifice and the presentation of the sacrifice? Maybe Catholics are wrong in making this distinction, but GIVEN the Catholic understanding that the sacrifice on Calvary is a type of the Jewish sacrifice on yom kippore, it follows quite logically that there should be a slaughtering and a presentation component. The mass is the presentation component of teh sacrifice. So again, maybe we’re wrong about all that, but it’s just so tired and lame to keep repeating teh same Lorraine Boettner junk. We believe that there are at least two components to teh nature of sacrifice. If the sacrifice was completely done and nothing more needed to happen, why did Jesus rise from the dead? So let’s try and dig a little deeper, and stop repeating teh non sequitars of professional anti-Catholics who have done you good and faithful Jesus loving Christians no service by providing sloppy and ill-informed arguments for regurgitation.
Kel,
Well, I still don’t quite see the problem with the statement. So you quoted
“Jesus left us with His promise of eternal salvation through His Church, which He established.”
We believe Jesus promised that he would grant us salvation through his Church and he established the Church. If Jesus did establish the Church, then indeed I also don’t see what the problem with saying that you are in love with teh Church is. I’m sure you love the bible, teh word of God. We too love the bible and the Church because we believe it is teh bride of Christ. I guess here we just have to agree to disagree.
“(6) The mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.”
Jon, the Church teaches that Calvary and the sacrifice of the Mass are one and the same sacrifice. You need a proper understanding of the Passover in order to understand that when Jesus said, “It is finished” upon the Cross, He meant the Passover meal that He’d begun in the upper room with the disciples. He’d finally drunk the 4th Passover cup when he said, “I thirst” and drank the wine they offered Him on the cross. Priest and Victim, He has instituted the new covenant with His people. He is the Lamb that was slain, and every good Jew can tell you that the requirement of the Passover was that you had to eat the lamb!
I highly recommend Scott Hahn’s audio CD, The Fourth Cup, or any of his other excellent talks on the Eucharist. It will show you how your assumption are wrong, and what you think you know about the Catholic Church is wrong. If, of course, you are not too proud to hear and learn something.
As for your every other objection, where exactly did you get the Bible you read? Did it fall out of the sky, leather-bound and page numbered? Who exactly do you think declared sacred Scripture to be sacred Scripture? THE Church! Christ’s Body on earth, the Church, has the authority to determine sacred Scripture and that’s precisely what they did through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And it was the CATHOLIC CHURCH, my friend. Do you believe all the Church Fathers to be fools and idolators? Augustine, Aquinas, Jerome, are they simply not as bright as you? They just didn’t get it the way you do?
More brilliant folks than I have plunged the depth of Church teaching and writing and come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that Christ founded on the rock of Peter before He ascended to glory. They have understood the New Testament in relation to the Old, not as a stand-alone. They have recognized that Mary is the masterpiece of Christ, and they have honored her as the mother of God. They understand that worship is rightly done using both the body and the spirit; for we are flesh and spirit. The body is not evil, but good, and our worship of God has a physical, tangible element that is holy and right.
Frankly, all your conclusions are so erroneous and full of hatred. A little willingness on your part to seek out authentic Catholic teaching would go a long way. I truly hope the Lord softens your heart and opens your eyes.
We believe Jesus promised that he would grant us salvation through his Church and he established the Church.
That was my whole point, Bobby. :D You believe Jesus promised to grant you salvation through the Church (I’m assuming as an institution), and I believe He purchased my salvation on the cross with His own blood, period. It appears you are saying He grants salvation through the Church, and I am saying we ARE the church when we receive the salvation He has already purchased for us through His sacrifice. The church does not save, the church is composed of those who are saved. Hope that makes more sense.
Jon, you might be better received in discussion if your comments were less inflammatory and disrespectful toward Catholics. There is a way to discuss these issues without being hostile and insulting. :(
Sorry to but in, this conversation is going well!
Jon,
Thanks for the format!
1. In a Catholic Mass, the whole focus and the object of worship is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don’t know how else to explain this. The first half includes three readings from the bible, one from the Old Testament, one from the New Testament and one from the Gospel. There is also a Psalm which is spoken or sung, and an Alleluia. In the second half, we remember what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper and we do it. To make a lot of the Church is to make even more of the Word made flesh.
2. Did the Apostles usurp Christ’s authority? No, because Christ made them his representatives on Earth. When one Apostle died, someone was apointed in his place so that Christ would always be represented on Earth. Remember that they chose someone to replace Judas.
3. What exactly is the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit?
We do not deny the spiritual character of worship. Angels are pure spirit and they constanly worship God. However, God gave us heads to bow and knees to bend in order to worship Him.
4. We do not worship Mary or the Saints. They are not gods and goddesses. There is only one God. However, Mary is our Mother (see Revelation 12), the mother of all who keep God’s commandments, including the one about honoring our mother and father. Also see Luke 1:48.
Jesus told us that that those “pieces of bread” are His Body. In Corinthians, we are told that people who do not recognize Christ in the bread but eat anyway bring judgment (or damnation) on themselves. (Corinthians 11:29)
5. Do you mean that we don’t drink what you think is just wine, what we believe to be the Blood of Christ, or that we are actually drinking the Blood of Christ, and therefore are not drinking wine? What exactly are you holding against us in this statement?
6. We believe that the Mass is a participation in the ultimate sacrifice of Christ. No Catholic would (or should) deny the “one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ.”
7. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26
Matthew 12:31-32 I tell you any sinful thing you do or say can be forgiven. Even if you speak against the Son of Man, you can be forgiven. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven, either in this life or in the life to come.
So some sins will be forgiven in the next life. Catholics call that Purgatory.
Okay, I think I see now… we would also say that the Church is BOTH the institution AND the individual members of it, though. But okay, I see the distinction now. It more has to do with the nature of “the church” and what we mean by “the church” I suppose…
Christ did in fact establish a shepherd on earth–He knew we needed the physical as well as the spiritual. He knows human nature and He knows we’re not perfect, so He supplies us with both the spiritual and physical signs.
The Church IS made up of humans that make up the body of Christ. We’re not referring to a building–we’re referring to the fact that through the Catholic Church we are united as the Body Of Christ. When we say “We love the Church” we’re expressing a love for the Body of Christ that Jesus Christ Himself established.
Read Matthew:16:13-19. I’m sure I’m not the only Catholic who’s referenced that as the establishment of Peter as the first pope. Jesus said: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whateer you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19).
Jesus is saying that upon Peter (which means “Rock”) He will build up His Church and give him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. People who governed countries/kingdoms had the keys to that particular place–as a sign of their authority. Jesus is giving Peter the authority to lead His followers (the Church) in His Name. As RCJC pointed out, it’s not usurping Christ’s authority, but rather receiving the authority from Christ to be His representatives on Earth.
Since Peter was a mortal and we still needed that person to follow in those footsteps to keep up the tradition Christ established it got passed down through apostolic succession. The authority is given to the Pope by Christ.
Christ told Peter after the resurrection when He asked him 3 times if Peter loved Him to feed and tend his sheep and feed his lambs (John 21:15-19). That’s another place Christ establishes Peter as an authority before He ascends to the Father in Heaven.
What unites Catholics is Christ–His body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus Christ was fully man and fully divine. This is a concept that cannot be understood in human terms because it is divine terms. Either a person believes Christ established ONE UNIVERSAL Church (and that’s all Catholic really means is “universal”) or He didn’t, which wouldn’t make sense because Jesus talks about establishing a Church.
An anti-Christ is someone who’s AGAINST Christ and the pope is NOT against Christ therefore He’s not an antiChrist.
In fact, many Popes have spoken on Christ’s love for us and the Father’s desire to pour His graces upon us. Pope Benedict even wrote (I think an Encylical–but I can’t remember the title) all about God being love and His love. Pope John Paul II went so far as to say that our bodies (made in the image and likness of God) proclaim God’s plan to the world (“The Theology Of The Body”–which is a series of homilies Pope JPII gave).
Since Jesus and God are united as 2 persons of the Holy Trinity if we make much of Jesus, we’re making much of God. The Holy Trinity is a great mystery that is of the divine and not of human terms so it’s hard to understand it with our human minds.
As to Catholics not loving the Word of God, that’s not true. I read the Bible every day. Every Mass I go to I hear the Word of God read from the Bible. Several Catholics (including myself) have offered Biblical passages as support for Catholic practices and traditions. The Bible is weaved throughout the Catholic faith.
Several names have been mentioned here, I’ll post the names of Catholic apologetics (people who explain what the Catholic faith believes) so that people who are interested can look them up:
GK Chesterton (I’m not sure who mentioned this name, but it was mentioned)
Peter Kreft
Scott (and Kimberly) Hahn
Jeff Cavins
Patrick Madrid
If there’s other names I’ve missed other Catholics on here can feel free to add to that list.
These people are very searchable. You can google their names or, if someone is interested, I can dig up their websites and post the link.
There’s also the Catholic Answers Website and EWTN
I’ve found Scott Hahn’s work on the Barnes & Noble website. I’m sure you can find all the names on there and/or on Amazon.
Correct me if I am wrong, but somewhere in Exodus the some of people challenged Moses because they claimed that he was usurping God and the people by making himself the mediator. They said that he was denying that the people were holy. I can’t find it right now, does anyone remember what happened to the accusers?
RCJC,
I know they grumbled against Moses often, but I don’t recall if they did what you’re talking about, but I could be wrong about that. Maybe you can go to the Catholic Answers website and see if they mention anything about that.
RCJC,
Are you think of the story of Korah’s rebellion? That’s in Numbers 16. I once heard a debate on the priesthood between Jimmy Akin and Anthony Pizzoto (sp?) where Akin busted out Korah’s rebellion at the end. It was devastating…
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church…
So Kel, why is it bad that a Catholic loves the Church just as Jesus does? It is, after all, the bride of Christ.
This is what happens when you cast pearls before swine. Stop arguing with them.
Know that if the Church were of the world, the world would love the Church. But as it is, Christ did establish His Church and the world hates the Church just as the world hated Christ.
Well, in fairness to Kel (and others like Rasqual), they really are willing to discuss these issues and listen carefully, considering what the other side says. Your advice about casting pearls before swines may be true for some on here, Amanda, but I don’t think Kel would fall into that category.
Sydney wrote:
No, I’ve read the Koran and I have former muslim (now born again Christian) friends. Only those who die in holy war are assured of heaven. You MUST obey Allah to get to heaven but it is no guarantee. I stated it correctly.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean, then. In both cases (fulfilling the 5 pillars, or dying as a “martyr”), the attainment of paradise is *conditional*: “do these things, and THEN you will attain paradise”… just as is the case with Christianity (i.e. have faith in Christ, and do what He tells you to do [cf. John 14:15, Luke 6:46, etc.], and you will be saved). All Muslims believe that, if they satisfy the 5 pillars, they will attain Heaven; either your friend thinks that individual Muslims might be in doubt about whether they actually satisfied the 5 pillars, or your friend is simply mistaken. In addition, you’re assuming your own unbiblical “once saved, always saved” idea and imposing it on them; if THAT’S what you mean, then I can hardly blame any given Muslim for rejecting that erroneous idea! Ask any Muslim if he will attain paradise after fulfilling the 5 pillars, but while at the same time blaspheming Allah, the Prophet Mohammed, or what-have-you, and he will certainly (and sensibly) say “no”! It’s quite possible to take the free gift of salvation, and throw it away. Do you honestly think that God would force anyone into Heaven who didn’t want to be with Him, or who had backslid (what Catholics would call “losing the state of sanctifying grace”)?
If NO MAN can pluck us out of the Father’s hand I would assume that would include ourselves.
You’d need to show that your assumption was correct… especially in the face of the fact that your interpretation flies in the face of a great deal of Scripture itself (see the references I posted earlier, re: “persevering to the end in order to be saved”, etc.; and there are many others); also, it would render free will meaningless, insofar as salvation is concerned, and that one who had “prayed the sinner’s prayer” could hypothetically backslide, end his life with a continuous stream of murders, rapes and blasphemies, die in full hatred of God, and still expect to be welcomed happily into Heaven; the very idea is absurd, and it has no basis in Scripture at all. (This illustrates yet another problem with this “juridical” [i.e. “pay my way, and I can get in”] view of salvation; would an unrepentant sinner be HAPPY in Heaven, where there is no sin allowed, where all the lower things to which he is addicted are gone, and where Heaven consists in utter and complete union with the One Whom he’d been rejecting through his sin? I hardly think so. He’d find Heaven to be less endurable than Hell!)
What you just described “holy hope” sounds like works based faith.
I’ve heard similar phrases from some anti-Catholic Protestants, before (e.g. “works-righteousness”, etc.), usually meant as a denigration of the Catholic view. Could you explain, precisely, what you mean by it? I hope you don’t mean that works are completely unnecessary for salvation (in defiance of the explicit opposite taught in James 2:24), or that you think Catholics believe that “works alone, apart from faith, is enough to save” (which is an ancient heresy called “Pelagianism”, and which was utterly condemned by the Catholic Church in the early 5th century A.D.)?
If Catholic sources are unconvincing, perhaps you’d listen to C.S. Lewis?
“Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary. […] There are two parodies of the truth which different sets of Christians have, in the past, been accused by other Christians of believing: perhaps they may make the truth clearer. One set were accused of saying, “Good actions are all that matters. The best good action is charity. The best kind of charity is giving money. The best thing to give money to is the Church. So hand us over $10,000 and we will see you through.” The answer to that nonsense, of course, would be that good actions done for that motive, done with the idea that Heaven can be bought, would not be good actions at all, but only commercial speculations. The other set were accused of saying, “Faith is all that matters. Consequently, if you have faith, it doesn’t matter what you do. Sin away, my lad, and have a good time and Christ will see that it makes no difference in the end.” The answer to that nonsense is that, if what you call your “faith” in Christ does not involve taking the slightest notice of what He says, then it is not Faith at all-not faith or trust in Him, but only intellectual acceptance of some theory about Him.” (Mere Christianity, Chapter 12)
Another way I’ve heard it (right) put is this: “It’s not faith OR works… and it’s not even faith AND works… but it’s faith THAT works.” For anyone to accuse Catholics of “earning their place in heaven” (i.e. so-called “works-righteousness”–a.k.a. the heresy of Pelagianism, from which, ironically, the Catholic Church protected Christendom for at least 1500 years) would be as silly as accusing an evangelical Protestant of thinking that a lifetime of sin and rapine will not affect one’s salvation, so long as one prayed “the sinner’s prayer” and came to Jesus in one’s youth. Both ideas are utter, provable balderdash.
This is what happens when you cast pearls before swine. Stop arguing with them.
I am a Christian, Amanda.
So Kel, why is it bad that a Catholic loves the Church just as Jesus does? It is, after all, the bride of Christ.
It isn’t, and that wasn’t my argument to begin with. The reason I question it is because I rarely hear statements from Catholic friends like, “I am so in love with Jesus.”
My argument is, is there perhaps too much emphasis placed on the supposed saving power of an institution as opposed to the saving power of Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice?
Thanks, Bobby! Yes, that was it.
Kel,
I don’t think the Church has the power to save anyone apart from, just as you said, the saving power of Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice.
I might not be saying it very well.
My previous comment got eaten. Kel, I wasn’t referring to you with the swine comment…those who call us idolators (which would only be true if the Eucharist was NOT Christ’s body, blood, soul, and divinity) or call the Church the Anti-Christ are who I was referring to.
The Church points to Christ. It is our Mother ship, sailing us home to God- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Church holds and protects the truth, passes down doctrine which doesn’t change but stands firm on rock, not sifting sand. We love the Church simply BECAUSE it belongs to Christ. He is the reason for all of it.
Before he died, Jesus prayed that we “all be one so that the world would know the Father sent me…” And the bible warns against schisms or listening to those who come preaching “another gospel”. The Catholic Church can trace it’s apostolic succession back to the time of Christ. Men were approved and “sent”. My question to Protestant pastors: “Who sent you?” Who founded your church? All other denominations have a human founder. Who founded the Catholic Church? “And I say that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church…”
The reason I question it is because I rarely hear statements from Catholic friends like, “I am so in love with Jesus.”My argument is, is there perhaps too much emphasis placed on the supposed saving power of an institution as opposed to the saving power of Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice?
Hi Kel,
As a Catholic, I don’t see it that way at all. I’ll attempt to explain. Take for example, the crucifix which hangs on the wall of almost every Catholic Church. It exists as a reminder of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for us. The stations of the cross commemorate the Road to Calvary. The statues and paintings of saints are not for extra worship opportunity as some non-Catholics may think, but they serve as a reminder of how we are all called by Jesus to be members of His Body. To your other point, we Catholics are called to evangelize as all Christians are, and I think the “institution” (as you call it) that is the Church , is getting better at addressing that issue, so you will see Catholic Parishes organizing Evangelization programs for their parishioners. I admit, I don’t recall that I’ve never* heard anyone say “I am so in love with Jesus”, and maybe we could do better at that. Some of us are less demonstrative that way in our personal lives. But when we say “we love the Catholic Church” we aren’t viewing the pews, the Vatican, or the Pope as more or even equal to Jesus. Jesus reigns supreme. That’s just coming from my heart, not any theology books. Does that make sense?
One other point, the emphasis that is given to the “institution”, the Church, is there because it gives us the benefit of continuity. We are humans, so the Church on earth is not perfect, but this continuity is something I value highly. In the grand scheme of things, I think two thousand years is a long time for any institution to survive and it is by God’s Grace, not man’s power, that the Church has survived all these centuries, IMHO.
God bless.
*Correction: I meant “never” to read “ever“.
I admit, I don’t recall that I’ve *ever* heard anyone say “I am so in love with Jesus”, and maybe we could do better at that.
Well… just to back up the conversation a bit, and summarize (yes, an irony for the long-winded Paladin!)…
Had Jon, et al., not “launched” against a beautiful display of public adoration of Jesus Christ (and I really do hope that even Jon will admit that the religious brothers INTEND to worship Jesus Christ, even if Jon thinks they’re tragically mistaken about transubstantiation, etc…!), you would probably not have heard a word of controversy from me, on this point. I’m well aware of the fact that there are many faith-traditions on this board… and (at least according to how my mother raised me) I consider it unconscionable to lambaste a positive display of religious faith which was obviously, patently not intended to denigrate any other beliefs… whether I happen to agree with the principles behind the display (as I do) or not. That’s why I wrote, ultimately, and that’s why I objected. I would say the same against any attack against a video of secular people “coming to Christ in the believer’s prayer”, or even a video (not that it’d ever be taped, I suspect) of an LDS baptism of the dead! Seriously: are we so poor in self-restraint that we can’t simply see the (obviously intended) good in something, which explicitly honours God, without raging into a private, sectarian rant?
Now, when others follow up with questions (and/or criticisms, and/or mistaken claims) about my Faith, I will certainly try my best to respond to them, and to correct any misapprehensions. But I did not set out to “convert” anyone; I (and many others) reacted in defense, not offense.
I don’t mean to stifle a religious discussion that the participants find enjoyable, but… especially for those who are currently uncomfortable with the strident debate… I’d urge, beg, and plead with all concerned: do not turn this into a “mutual bashing” match! Ask questions; don’t sling canards and denigrations. Quite frankly, I don’t care if you feel “moved” to “challenge the heretics where they are”; knock it off. Questions can be asked in a calm, sincerely interrogative manner; they do not, despite whatever others might have said or taught, need to take the form of the “lightning-bolt from on high”. That, especially when unprovoked by any attack, is NOT indicative of Christianity; it’s indicative only of impulsiveness, a profound lack of self-restraint, and lamentably bad manners. No Christian imperative requires that we address fellow Christians with maledictions like that. Play nice, and bite your tongue until you can control it properly. James 3:1-12. Fair enough?
John I know what you are referring to with the wine thing; my last answer was incomplete, but I didn’t write more at the time and didn’t have time to go back to it.
It is true that for some centuries (beginning at the end of the Middle Ages, I think) the Catholic Church did not as a rule offer the Communion cup to the laity, partly because of the fear of spilling that you mentioned. The faithful received the consecrated bread alone. However, both the bread and wine were always consecrated at Mass and both were consumed by the clergy, so everything Christ said to do at the Last Supper was carried out. The laity was deprived of nothing by this, however, because it was always the teaching of the Church that we are receiving the “whole Jesus” – body, blood, soul and divinity — under the appearance of either bread or wine. Even in the earliest days of the Church, Communion was brought to the sick in the form of the host (consecrated bread) alone.
However, this changed about 45 years ago, during the Second Vatican Council, when it was decided to offer the cup to the laity at Mass again. But even now, there are some people who can receive under only one kind – gluten-intolerant people who can’t consume bread drink only the Precious Blood, alcoholics who can’t touch spirits will consume Christ’s body alone. (Somehow everything Jesus provided us seems to work out well!)
Most younger Catholics alive today don’t even remember a time when the Communion cup wasn’t offered to them. That you had never heard of this change and obviously had only the vaguest idea of the previous history doesn’t speak much for your general knowledge of the Church. It’s something you could be hardly be expected to know; but it’s also not something you should pretend to know when you don’t. Why not ask questions about the things you’ve only heard about Catholics, instead of going into a rant based on incomplelte information?
Hi Janet,
Yes, that makes sense to me. I remember one person specifically, who rarely ever mentioned Christ Himself, but had a sort of – don’t know any other way to say it – shrine in her office to Mary. She was one who I recall using this phrase “in love with the Church.” She and her husband were my employers, and I recall her husband also having a discussion with me once about my faith. I point blank asked him if, despite knowing me and my husband and the way we lived our lives and how we were Christians, he could say he believed I was destined for Hell because I was not Catholic. He simply smiled in response. He refused to answer me. These were committed, committed Catholics, and very kind people. I feel he simply didn’t want to tell me what he believed to be true: that I am not saved because I do not belong to the “one true Church.”
I would never, ever presume to have determined the salvation or damnation of any of my Catholic (or Mormon, or Episcopalian, or you name it) friends.
Whew! I’m glad to know that there is now a page function in the comments for “newer entries.” For a moment until I saw it I thought my comment was lost in cyberspace! Has this function been here for a while, or have we just never hit a high enough number of comments before this?
“…he could say he believed I was destined for Hell because I was not Catholic.”
Yikes… so I don’t know if you know this, Kel, but just in case, no Catholic can ever say anyone is going to hell. True, we do believe the Catholic Church is the means by which Christ established the application of his graces, but judging the individual’s soul is something we can never do. In other words, it does not follow that if you are not a member of the Catholic Church, then you are going to hell. That doesn’t mean we think non-Catholics definitely DO go to heaven (in fact, we don’t say the Pope “goes to heaven” or anyone else still alive), but it is quite against the Church’s teaching to say that because someone isn’t Catholic then they go to hell.
Perhaps one of the reasons Catholic today will say often that they “are in love with the Church” is that it is being attacked on all sides, not just by the most intolerant kinds of Protestants (not most Protestants) but by the relentlessly hostile secular media. And yes, they attack the Catholic Church in particular. Our reaction is a defensive reaction. The ones from whom I have heard most about their love of the Church are Catholic converts from other deonominations. They know all the difficulties of trying to be Christian without the fullness of what Jesus wanted to give us with His Church, and their reaction is one of gratitude now that they know that fullness. Of course, it is ultimately gratitude to Christ himself.
Kel – I think we Catholics have a different language than those who are not Catholic. We say “I pray to …” when we mean we are asking them to pray WITH us. When I say I love my Catholic faith, what I am saying, in shorthand, is that I love the Church Jesus Christ founded and I love that I can and do receive Him, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist, which He instituted for His Church.
Someone somewhere I am sure has written Catholic-speak and Non-Catholic speak – a dictionary of sorts, that sorts out this shorthand way of speaking.
We can all be accused and rightly so, of saying the same things, and yet not understanding one another due to the words that we use to describe our faith.
I am Roman Catholic and I am in love with Jesus Christ, who is My Lord and Savior – to whom I am eternally grateful to for my life and for my salvation.
Let’s face it- Catholic catechesis in the last 40 or so years has SUUUUUUUUUUUUCKED! And as a result, we have a ridiculous amount of bum Catholics walking around who don’t know their faith, who have left it for stupid reasons, who are completely confused, to whom teh Catholic faith is just some American cultural phenomena like Judaism has become, etc. etc. So it is quite understandable when people like Kel and Sydney run into Catholics who don’t show the same love and fire for Jesus as their fellow Christians, and they can only sigh in sadness and say “if they only knew the love of Jesus…” I can only echo those sentiments concerning those bum Catholics.
Kel,
Glad to hear that makes sense to you. The level devotion to Mary seems to be an individual preference among Catholics and we have given her many “nicknames” if you will to show our love for her in a familiar sort of way. If you are in California, for example, you might drive by a Church named “Our Lady of the Seas”. Different countries have different favorite names and likenesses of Mary. I know Catholics who have statues of Mary in their homes (ha! I’m one of them) and some are very elaborate displays. The only time it is seen as problematic is when Mary is elevated above Jesus in their hearts and minds, and that is a serious problem. Sometimes, what appears to be a normal devotion to Catholics may seem over-the-top to non-Catholics, but I’d say 99.99% of the time, we Catholics feel our devotedness to Mary as we would a beloved mother or grandmother in our lives. We don’t “worship” Mary any more than we do our own Mother. In my experience, the act of bowing or kneeling helps me to focus on my prayers while also showing respect.
Good to see Bobby @ 3:36 addressed your other point. It’s one that many Catholics become tongue-tied over and I wasn’t sure how to explain it myself.
Rasqual – “Lee: How many of Luther’s 95 theeis were wrong as critiques of the church in his day?”
I don’t know – I have never studied Luther’s 95 points …. so why don’t you enlighten us? I am confused why you bring Pope John Paul II into the discussion – he was extremely Catholic and did not waver from the Church’s teachings …
Bobby @ 3:47 pm,
So true. I’d laugh at your comment but the truth of it makes me want to cry. Thank God there are so many well-educated Catholics and non-Catholics commenting here!
****
Lori Pieper says:
June 28, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Perhaps one of the reasons Catholic today will say often that they “are in love with the Church” is that it is being attacked on all sides, not just by the most intolerant kinds of Protestants (not most Protestants) but by the relentlessly hostile secular media. Our reaction is a defensive reaction. The ones from whom I have heard most about their love of the Church are Catholic converts from other deonominations. They know all the difficulties of trying to be Christian without the fullness of what Jesus wanted to give us with His Church, and their reaction is one of gratitude now that they know that fullness. Of course, it is ultimately gratitude to Christ himself.
Amen to that! Very perceptive!
* * * * *
Someone somewhere I am sure has written Catholic-speak and Non-Catholic speak – a dictionary of sorts, that sorts out this shorthand way of speaking.
Lee, I’ve never seen one but it seems like a great idea!
Kel – I think we Catholics have a different language than those who are not Catholic. We say “I pray to …” when we mean we are asking them to pray WITH us.
I understand what you’re saying, but this does not compute with my personal experience at a job working for Catholics where we were to all join hands at the beginning of the workday to pray “Hail Mary….” After a couple times of standing there and joining hands while this was prayed, I actually decided I’d rather arrive at work 5 minutes late every day than ever stand there and pray that prayer. That’s just how I feel. I agree that Mary was blessed among women, as the Scriptures say, but I am not going to stand there and say a prayer to someone who has passed away (I know Catholics differ here as they believe Mary ascended). I do not ask the saints for help and I do not seek the help of Mary, so I could not in good conscience stand there and participate in something I believed to be idolatry in my heart, whether the prayer was meant as a form of worship or not.
Amanda: Who founded the Orthodox church?
Bear in mind — Luther didn’t plan to start a new church. He simply wanted reforms.
How many of his 95 theses were wrong to seek redress for?
Perhaps one of the reasons Catholic today will say often that they “are in love with the Church” is that it is being attacked on all sides, not just by the most intolerant kinds of Protestants (not most Protestants) but by the relentlessly hostile secular media. And yes, they attack the Catholic Church in particular. Our reaction is a defensive reaction. The ones from whom I have heard most about their love of the Church are Catholic converts from other deonominations. They know all the difficulties of trying to be Christian without the fullness of what Jesus wanted to give us with His Church, and their reaction is one of gratitude now that they know that fullness. Of course, it is ultimately gratitude to Christ himself.
When I heard that comment, Lori, it may have been said in defense of her faith. Though it was not a hostile or angry conversation, she was talking with someone who was no longer in the Catholic Church. I think this person had said they did venerate the “Immaculate Heart of Mary” and the “Sacred Heart of Jesus,” however. My boss’s response was one of shock and disbelief, and she said she could not ever imagine leaving, because she was “so in love with the Church.”
Hi Lee,
Wanted to answer your questions. I know I am saved because I take God at His Word. Romans 10:13 says if I call upon the name of the Lord I shall be saved. I did so I know I am because God is not a liar.
I guess that answers questions 1 and 2. I believe that many “Christians” will find they are not really Christians when I read Matthew 7. Jesus spoke of those who did many religious things but had no change of heart. A change of heart is what salvation is about. Its the work the Holy Spirit does in us the moment of salvation. Saying a “sinners prayer” does not save you. It is the heart change that puts you under the blood of the Lamb.
I guess the main difference between Catholic and born-again understanding of salvation is that you think grace is given incrementally through receiving sacraments where we believe grace is bestowed the moment we believe in our hearts.
Kel,
Sorry, but I’m just getting to reading some earlier comments I want to mention that I can see how, for you as a non-Catholic, being asked to pray the Hail Mary in a circle with your Catholic employer and other employees would be awkward for you. Maybe you could have suggested “The Lord’s Prayer” in the spirit of ecumenism. :)
Lori,
The “newer comments” thing caught me by surprise a while ago. My computer is slow and it’s kind of a hassle to have to wait for it…. My guess is that its purpose is to wind down the comments on the thread. (?)
Sydney,
I’ll address your comment to Lee. Since you like to write in short soundbites, I will too….. (I won’t come out and tell you “”you’re wrong”), you should realize we aren’t as far apart as you may think. I believe we’ve got to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk and reading The Word). (I’m sure that’s in the Bible, but I don’t have the verses handy.)
The grace we receive through the sacraments from the Holy Spirit aids us in our daily ups and downs, trials and tribulations. It helps us stay away from sin. Grace does not incrementally add up, ensuring one’s salvation (as I understand you saying) upon death. (Have you heard the phrase “falling from grace”? It means we’ve sinned. The sacraments replenish the grace to help us move on in our Christian life.)
Sydney wrote, in reply to Lee:
I believe that many “Christians” will find they are not really Christians when I read Matthew 7. Jesus spoke of those who did many religious things but had no change of heart. A change of heart is what salvation is about. Its the work the Holy Spirit does in us the moment of salvation. Saying a “sinners prayer” does not save you. It is the heart change that puts you under the blood of the Lamb.
All right. But you might be able to guess the next question: if a self-professed Christian can possibly “find out, only at the end, that he/she is not a true Christian”, then how could any Christian have “absolute assurance” of his/her own personal salvation? How do you know, for example, that you (personally) won’t be “surprised”, just as they might be? Surely you realize that there are literally millions of people who sincerely give their hearts to Jesus, only to have some of them fall back into sin (and even apostasy)? If one can only tell the “true Christians” from “the self-deceived” only at death (and judgment), then how does that add up to “personal assurance of personal salvation” during one’s lifetime?
Paladin, I know I am saved because I have done EXACTLY what the Bible says for salvation. Salvation is not a complicated thing. The Bible is very clear what to do. I am referring to people who much like the Pharisees live this “holy” life and think to themselves “look what a good Christian I am. I go to church every Sunday. I tithe a lot. I live so morally. I am such a good person.” and yet NEVER made that heart decision for Christ. There are people like that in every Christian denomination. Its up to people to examine their hearts and know whether they are placing their faith in CHRIST ALONE for salvation or in what they do themselves.
Kel,
I have to agree with Janet; your former employers, as wonderful as they might have been, were rather tactless (at best) in requiring you, a known non-Catholic, to pray the “Hail, Mary”! Please know that they did this in SPITE of the Church’s teaching and disciplines, not BECAUSE of it (i.e. it was their own idea… albeit a well-meaning but misguided one). People of all stripes can do rather dumb things, when fueled by enthusiasm and zeal!
Janet, are you being snarky? Cause it is coming across that way. But I will move on. I had several CATHOLICS explain sacraments to me as being God’s grace given incrementally. And they were Catholics on this very board (though not on this thread). That is what was told to me and what I understood to be your viewpoint. But if I am wrong then you explain it to me. How is salvation achieved (what does the Catholic church teach?)
Hold on. (Sorry for jumping into this one, Sydney and Janet, but I think I can, ironically, answer this one briefly… albeit with loads of parentheses!)
There are two distinct types of grace: actual grace (which empowers us to perform good “actions”), and “sanctifying” (i.e. “saint-making”) grace, by which the Holy Spirit dwells within our souls and conforms us ever more to His Image (if we let Him). There’s also a distinction between “justification” (our adoption in Christ) and “sanctification” (our purification and growth in holiness). I don’t know if anyone can speak of actual grace being “incremental” or not, frankly… though I suppose one could. But when we’re talking about salvation, we’re talking about Sanctifying grace.
The Sacraments are external (visible), efficacious (they actually bring about what they signify) signs, instituted by Christ, which communicate (give) Sanctifying Grace. Can we grow in God’s grace? Yes, certainly; the extent to which our hearts/souls increase in their capacities to love is the extent to which we gain sanctifying grace… and the Sacraments, when they are received worthily, do so tremendously.
Justification, however, is not a matter of degree; either one is adopted, or one is not. That might have been what you had in mind?
All right. But you might be able to guess the next question: if a self-professed Christian can possibly “find out, only at the end, that he/she is not a true Christian”, then how could any Christian have “absolute assurance” of his/her own personal salvation? How do you know, for example, that you (personally) won’t be “surprised”, just as they might be?
Romans 8 has some awesome answers to these questions.
Surely you realize that there are literally millions of people who sincerely give their hearts to Jesus, only to have some of them fall back into sin (and even apostasy)? If one can only tell the “true Christians” from “the self-deceived” only at death (and judgment), then how does that add up to “personal assurance of personal salvation” during one’s lifetime?
I don’t agree that one can only tell true Christians from the deceived at death. I believe that we can see who bears good fruit and who bears bad fruit, as Jesus said – we will know a tree by its fruit. But as to whether or not that person has given up his salvation and become apostate (you can’t “lose” your salvation, but you can walk away), that is something only the Lord can truly know.
Kel,
If I understand you correctly, you have a different view than Sydney does (i.e. you don’t believe in “Once Saved, Always Saved”, in the sense that “it’s impossible for a Christian to walk away from salvation”). Do I understand you correctly?
There are two distinct types of grace: actual grace (which empowers us to perform good “actions”), and “sanctifying” (i.e. “saint-making”) grace, by which the Holy Spirit dwells within our souls and conforms us ever more to His Image (if we let Him).
Can you provide a Bible reference for this so I can clarify what you’re talking about here?
There’s also a distinction between “justification” (our adoption in Christ) and “sanctification” (our purification and growth in holiness).
Yes, this I agree with, absolutely.
The Sacraments are external (visible), efficacious (they actually bring about what they signify) signs, instituted by Christ, which communicate (give) Sanctifying Grace.
I need a reference for this, too, please! Somebody help a girl out, here. :D
Paladin,
Yes, that is correct. I do not believe in “once saved, always saved.” I do believe that a Christian can choose to walk away from Christ, thereby giving up the salvation that was given him.
By this, I don’t mean that someone “slips up” or “backslides” as if the oft-used term. By this, I mean they begin to choose sin again as their usual pattern of operation and lifestyle. Again, Romans 8 helps to kind of clarify this, in my mind. If we continually choose the ways of the flesh, we are risking our own salvation.
P.S. – I know I’m butting in to another conversation, so forgive my rudeness, please! :D
Janet, are you being snarky?
Sydney,
I wasn’t saying that you personally don’t walk the walk if that’s what you are referring to. I’m saying that I think we all have to do more than “believe in Jesus in our heart” to go to heaven. What does that really mean for me when we’re yelling at our kids for getting the kitchen floor all muddy for the umpteenth time this week? I’m being sincere in my question. It’s not like a free pass is it?
I had several CATHOLICS explain sacraments to me as being God’s grace given incrementally. And they were Catholics on this very board (though not on this thread). That is what was told to me and what I understood to be your viewpoint. But if I am wrong then you explain it to me. How is salvation achieved (what does the Catholic church teach?)
I wish that person on this board would come back to explain what they wrote previously. Sorry, I don’t recall it. I did my best to explain grace in the sacraments so I won’t attempt again! The reason we have the Magisterium, the Catechism, etc, is because these things are not something that can be explained on a short thread like this. As I said before, I’m not here to tell you you are wrong! Just explaining things as I understand. There are those much smarter here than I. Listen to them and please check the many resources that have been mentioned in this thread.
***
Thanks Paladin for “jumping in”. I need to read up on that! Gotta run now. I’m tired and making little sense, I fear. Sydney, I’ll check back later. Thanks.
:) Well… Kel, these terms are technical terms from theology (i.e. not necessarily from the Scriptural text… think of the words “incarnation”, “Trinity”, “consubstantial with the Father”, “hypostatic union”, and such, for examples of true ideas which don’t have a chapter-and-verse reference, but rather are supported by diverse collections of Scriptural references, perhaps implicitly). See my Chesterton quote, above; just as a science concept need not have dropped, fully formed, from the lips of Aristotle or Sir Isaac Newton in order to be valid, some concepts in theology (e.g. Mary as Mother of God, Jesus having two natures in one Person, and so on) have been developed with the use of some very technical-sounding (and sometimes tiresomely so) language, in order to be as precise (and as brief) as necessary. If you’d like to see the Scriptural (and Traditional, and teachings of the Early Church Fathers) bases for these, you could check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The following site is word-searchable:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
:) By the way, Kel… re: your comment about OSAS, would you be startled and/or offended if I told you that your belief squares almost perfectly with that of the Catholic Church (though She’d use different terms to describe it)? One difference is that the Church doesn’t talk in terms of “the saved” or “the reprobate”, since those terms are meaningless until one’s death and judgment. Catholics also “trust” in Christ’s redemption of them (I do wonder if some non-Catholics worry about Catholics running, terrified, from pillar to post because of a pervasive worry about damnation; we call that “scruples“, and it’s a psychological/spiritual disorder! No, no… the Church encourages us to have confidence in Christ’s grace, but also not to commit the sin of presuming upon it [as if it were some sort of “free pass” to sin without consequence]).
Paladin, are you saying that unlike the Trinity and incarnation, which can be demonstrated in Scripture, there aren’t any Bible references for me about the two different types of grace? There is no way I have time to dig through the Catechism (my husband would be totally into that sort of research, but I’m a Cliff Notes kinda girl, LOL!!), but if you find some later, I would be interested to read them. :)
I wasn’t saying that you personally don’t walk the walk if that’s what you are referring to. I’m saying that I think we all have to do more than “believe in Jesus in our heart” to go to heaven. What does that really mean for me when we’re yelling at our kids for getting the kitchen floor all muddy for the umpteenth time this week? I’m being sincere in my question. It’s not like a free pass is it?
Ha! Like a get out of jail free card?? Nope. :D
Interjecting here – the “believe” part of believing in Christ in the Greek means “to rely on,” not just to give intellectual assent to a truth. Hope that helps.
Kel wrote:
Paladin, are you saying that unlike the Trinity and incarnation, which can be demonstrated in Scripture, there aren’t any Bible references for me about the two different types of grace?
Hm. It’s difficult to answer that, as written, because I know of no explicit Biblical references to the Trinity (i.e. the word was never used in Scripture, nor was the formal defintion: it has to be deduced from the information given–i.e. that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and they’re shown distinctly from one another; try to prove from Scripture, for example, that the Holy Spirit is God by means of a direct chapter-and-verse quote!), nor was the word “incarnation” ever used.
What I meant was, “All of the above are true, and demonstrable from Scripture [complete, rightly translated, and rightly interpreted], but none of them have an explicit chapter-and-verse proof-text. In other words (regrettably): they don’t reduce to Scriptural sound-bytes.
As a quick example: since “Sanctifying Grace” is simply the short-hand technical term for “the life of God within us, by which we are made fit for Heaven”, and since “actual grace” is simply the short-hand technical term for “other types of Divine help”, the difference between these two can be seen all over Scripture. Baalam’s gift of prophecy, for example, was a type of “actual grace” (free gift, given by God, for a purpose) which was obviously distinct from Sanctifying Grace, since Balaam was an enemy of God and His people (see Numbers 31:16, etc.).
Janet, no its not a free pass. Do you believe the blood of Christ is able to cover all sins? When Christ died on the cross for me I wasn’t even conceived yet (obviously, lol) but He still died for my as of yet uncommitted sins. When I received Him as my personal Lord and Savior by faith at age 6 He forgave all my sins that I committed up until that point AND all the sins that were yet to come. That does not mean I have a free pass to do whatever I want. Because I am now Christ’s. I must maintain that relationship. When I yell at my husband and don’t act like a loving wife our marriage isn’t dissolved. I am still his wife. But our relationship is damaged. I must make amends with him and set things right in order for our relationship to grow. So it is with a Christian in sin and Christ. We don’t lose our salvation or walk away. Once justified (and I agree with what Paladin wrote… there is a difference between sanctification and justification) always justified but that does not mean you will be sanctified or transformed into the image of Christ.
When one thinks they can lose their salvation it becomes a works situation. You must make sure you never sin or as soon as you do you better repent or else you are in danger or hellfire. What if you sin and never get the chance to repent? Do you then go to hell even though you previously were saved? This is not taught in Scripture.
What if you are unaware of sin? I hear a lot of talk about how some sins are venial sins and others are mortal… there is no talk of this in the bible. Sin is sin. All sin separates us from a Holy God. All sin must be covered under the blood. When you ask Christ to do that He does. FOREVER. Nothing can separate a believer from the love of God… not even ourselves. We need to always work at our friendship with God, to walk His way, to do His will but once we’re in the family we’re in!
Sydney,
Thanks for your explanation. Paladin’s ability to explain these things in the words of the Church is amazing, so I will defer to him/her on your question if you don’t mind. :)
Sydney wrote:
What if you are unaware of sin? I hear a lot of talk about how some sins are venial sins and others are mortal… there is no talk of this in the bible. Sin is sin.
I’m sorry, Sydney, but this is provably wrong; the distinction is most certainly in Scripture (as well as in common sense):
“If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. ” (1 John 5:16-17, RSV)
Also: there is no such thing as “having sin of which one is unaware”; sin involves an act of the free will, which is impossible without sufficient knowledge. One cannot “sin by accident”; one can do evil by accident, but (save perhaps for a lack of preparation or vigilance, which would by no means be accidental) one can not be blamed for that.
By this, I mean they begin to choose sin again as their usual pattern of operation and lifestyle.
Kel, Just when I think I have one sin conquered, more are exposed to me. I believe these sins are exposed to me through the Sacraments, heartfelt questioning, reflection and prayer – and by reading the writings of Saints (and the Christians here!).
There was a time when I would have never admitted that my past sinful behaviors were indeed sinful and I am sure that a time will come when I will look at the present and see yet more sins. I am in constant struggle with the fleshy side of me!
I see what a wretched sinner I am and pray He continue to me. I love Jesus with all my being and need Him for my survival.
Someone somewhere I am sure has written Catholic-speak and Non-Catholic speak – a dictionary of sorts, that sorts out this shorthand way of speaking.
Hi Lee, I don’t know of a Non-Catholic speak dictionary but I do have a Catholic Dictionary edited by Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., that is very informative, easy to use and understand.
As a quick example: since “Sanctifying Grace” is simply the short-hand technical term for “the life of God within us, by which we are made fit for Heaven”, and since “actual grace” is simply the short-hand technical term for “other types of Divine help”, the difference between these two can be seen all over Scripture.
Ohh, NOW I get what you’re saying. This helped!!
Hi Sydney, regarding the “not walking away” from our salvation, can you give me your understanding of Hebrews 10, specifically verses 26 and 27, which say: “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.”
Paladin, I read your post after I typed mine above.
A Lack of Preparation and Vigilance – A good title for my autobiography.
Kel, Just when I think I have one sin conquered, more are exposed to me. I believe these sins are exposed to me through the Sacraments, heartfelt questioning, reflection and prayer – and by reading the writings of Saints (and the Christians here!).
Praxedes, I feel the exact same way! Sometimes it’s like, “Whoa, God, I can only handle you showing me one at a time, please!” :D Minus the Sacraments (other than Communion), I arrive at this the same way you do.
But this isn’t what I mean. I mean if someone continues in willful sin after God has revealed to them – like He has to us – their need for repentance, then what happens? They get further from God, and eventually may find themselves living in a state of atheism. This does not mean God has given up on them, though, obviously. He doesn’t give up on us, and I’m so thankful for that!
When one thinks they can lose their salvation it becomes a works situation. You must make sure you never sin or as soon as you do you better repent or else you are in danger or hellfire. What if you sin and never get the chance to repent? Do you then go to hell even though you previously were saved? This is not taught in Scripture.
No, that isn’t what I mean, Sydney. We all sin everyday. It’s an intentional lifestyle of refusal to repent that may result in someone walking away from a relationship with Christ. That does not mean God doesn’t continue to pursue that person, because of course, He does. It means they have chosen to leave the covenant relationship with Him. And until we come back to Him, he will continue to seek after us to woo us back into His presence. But if we continually refuse Him, what do you believe will happen?
No Paladin I am not wrong. My Bible says in First John “sins unto the death” which were sins you could be put to death for (murder) Some sins had greater consequences ON THIS EARTH but sin is sin to God. You never see God ANYWHERE in the Bible winking at sin “Well, that wasn’t a MORTAL sin…”
You CAN sin unknowingly. Ps 19:12 David prays to be cleansed from secret sins… errors he didn’t understand that he had committed.
Kel, Hebrews 10:26, 27 is talking about the sin of rejecting Christ not the sin of the believer. This warning was given to Jews who were thinking of joining the church but wavering.
verses 22,23 speaks of assurance of faith. How can we be assured when we can lose our salvation?
Sydney wrote:
What if you sin and never get the chance to repent? Do you then go to hell even though you previously were saved? This is not taught in Scripture.
First of all: nowhere does Scripture ever teach “salvation” as a “one-time, once-and-for-all, never-lose-it-even-if-you-try” event. Secondly, see the references to moral and venial sin; not all sin is mortal (cf. 1 John 5:17). Third, if one has committed a mortal sin, then it’s only common sense to fear, to repent, to beg God’s mercy (which He ever offers to those who seek Him with a sincere heart; we don’t view God as a capricious tyrant who’s “eager to damn”, any more than you do!), and to have our sins forgiven by the priests whom Christ Himself authorized and empowered to forgive those sins:
“Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23, RSV)
After this, why would any Catholic have reason to fear? In fact, would not someone who had no access to this astonishing Sacrament of Healing have more reason to fear? This Sacrament, at least, has Christ’s guarantee of efficacy (i.e. it works, because Jesus says so). I do not say this to worry you (or anyone); I say it to emphasize the fact that, as well-intentioned though your attitude toward Catholics vis-a-vis sin and forgiveness might be, it is still mistaken and baseless, and you have no cause to worry.
As for being lost after “being saved” (see above for notes on that idea), did you catch my quote of St. Paul?
“Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” (1 Corinthians 9:25-27)
…and the three-fold quote from Jesus, Himself, about “those who persevere to the end will be saved”? How so, if “perseverance” is rendered unnecessary by the “guarantee that cannot be lost or thrown away”?
Also, Hebrews is remarkably strident:
“For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Hebrews 10:26-31, RSV)
This is plainly speaking of Christians (i.e. the “sanctified” who “received [not just ‘heard’] the knowledge of the truth” and were under the “covenant”), not life-long unbelievers and pagans. Even apostasy such as this, however, can be forgiven (see St. Peter’s forgiveness at Our Lord’s Hands in John 21:1-25), if only we seek that forgiveness as He wishes (and not simply following our own preferences or tastes, or those of our advisors).
Sydney, verse 29 states: “How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” Do you believe this applies only to unbelievers/Jews?
Sydney wrote:
No Paladin I am not wrong. My Bible says in First John “sins unto the death” which were sins you could be put to death for (murder) Some sins had greater consequences ON THIS EARTH but sin is sin to God.
I’m afraid that makes no sense in the context of 1 John 5; St. John is obvious speaking of eternal life (and death) in this passage, and in the entire letter:
1) “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.” (1 John 3:14, RSV) This obviously isn’t referring to physical resurrection (i.e. passing from physical death to physical life), nor does it mean that the unloving “abide in physical death”. Those who do not abide in love abide in spiritual death (which translates into damnation, if one dies without repentance; it’s what we call “not being in a state of sanctifying grace” or “being in a state of mortal sin”).
2) “He who has the Son of God has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life” [1 John 5:12]; obviously doesn’t mean that all non-Christians are physically dead!)
3) It would make no sense at all for St. John to say that “for sins which incur the earthly death penalty, I do not say to pray for that” [vs. 17]; are we to refuse to pray for those on death row, because we think St. John forbids it?
If nothing else: do you not find it suspicious that there is no Biblical proof for your interpretation (i.e. physical death), and that it’s merely guess-work on your part? If you insist on Scriptural proof, it’s not unreasonable for me to ask the same of you, yes? Where, in Scripture, does it prove conclusively (and against all evidence to the contrary in St. John’s writings) that St. John was speaking merely of earthly death, in 1 John 5?
You never see God ANYWHERE in the Bible winking at sin “Well, that wasn’t a MORTAL sin…”
Nor should you expect to; nor does any faithful, well-informed Catholic believe any such nonsense would ever be found in Holy Scripture. Sin is evil, and none of it is trivial; but not all sin leads inexorably and intrinsically to spiritual death.
You CAN sin unknowingly. Ps 19:12 David prays to be cleansed from secret sins… errors he didn’t understand that he had committed.
The Hebrew word used in Psalm 19:12 is “sh’giauth” (Hebrew: “errors”). My translation (from the RSV–not a Catholic Bible, per se) reads, “But who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults.”
(The Hebrew actually only uses the word “sh’giauth” once, and both parts of the sentence refer back to it; it would more accurately be rendered, “But who can discern his errors? Clean me from those that are hidden.”)
The KJV agrees, in fact; “sins” was not a word that was used in that line, by any reckoning. There are certainly faults which are not sins (e.g. a weakness for liquor, a naturally hot temper, a naturally morose and depressive outlook, a tendency to worry, etc.), but from which we should want to be freed, and it’s quite right to pray that God cleanse us of them. (Catholic spirituality and spiritual direction has a very rich body of teaching and wise practices, regarding the struggle against imperfections, and the treatments for them, in fact. The stories of the lives of the Saints are replete with them.)
Amanda: We believe in transubstantial authority. Things only SEEM human-founded to you. In reality, they’re not like that at all. ;-)
RCJC,
I sent you an email earlier today…
Wow! Thanks for turning an uplifting post into something utterly depressing. Pro-Lifers who actually work in the Mission Fields are constantly working side-by-side with Christians of many denominations. We actually manage to do the Lord’s work instead of arguing theology by accentuating our common belief in Jesus Christ. We pray together before during and after ministry. We lodge in each others’ homes. We attend each others’ churches during our stay and we further the cause which unites us.
I naively made the mistake of checking the box for e-mail notification of comments. Now, after being away from the puter for a couple days, I have to delete 250 e-mails because you Pro-Life wannabes have been discussing how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
(*sigh*) I sympathize with your frustration, groovysmyth, but: do you really think that burst of temper (and the insult–“pro-life-wannabees”–to those who were discussing) helped anything? That really wasn’t called for.
I would be interested in knowing why these issues are not worth discussing, groovsmyth. I would also be interested in seeing how it follows that if you discuss theology on a pro-life forum, then you are a pro-life wanna be.
Man, I’m doing a magnificent job of limiting my participation to the periphery of this thread.
Lee: I had asked you how many of Luther’s theses were wrong as critiques of the church in his day, and you replied “I don’t know – I have never studied Luther’s 95 points …. so why don’t you enlighten us?”
Yet your remarks suggested familiarity with him. So that’s not the case? Are you just being reflexively defensive and deeming his attempt to reform the Church an “attack” on it, or somesuch?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses
http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/2008/11/martin-luthers-95-theses-in-latin-and-english/
I think you’ll find that Luther’s theses are fully Catholic documents. Not what you expected?
“I am confused why you bring Pope John Paul II into the discussion – he was extremely Catholic and did not waver from the Church’s teachings.”
What did I say that led you to suspect I would think otherwise myself? Why would bringing someone unwavering in their faith into this particular discussion seem so odd?
Bobby, I didn’t say that the Roman Catholic Church teaches a denial of the Holy Spirit. I said that she denied the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. There is a difference between explicit teaching and practical effect. After I said that, because it was a repeat of what I had written earlier, I added an aside that it was mostly in transition to the further things that followed (and that I might modify or withdraw this phrase). The expansion of God’s people from Old Testament Israel to people from every tribe and nation, including mine, was also accompanied by an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This was the significance of Pentecost. However, under the priesthood and a great divide between clergy and laity, the Roman Catholic Church failed, I think, to acknowledge that he who is “least in the kingdom of heaven is greater” than John the Baptist. In fact, I argue that for many centuries, the Roman Catholic Church has not fed the sheep, preferring to keep the Word of God in darkness. The Protestant churches have translated the Scriptures, and the Roman Catholic Church has only done so belatedly and grudgingly.
That’s certainly true in Vietnam, the country where I am currently living. The evangelical churches here have just this month held the centennial of the gospel’s coming to Vietnam. By this they mean that the gospel did not really come to Vietnam until the first evangelical missionary did. And it’s true that while the Roman Catholic Church has existed in Vietnam for centuries, the Bible was not translated into Vietnamese until 1926 by Mr. Cadman, a Protestant. The Roman Catholics gave the Vietnamese their Latin script but they apparently weren’t interested in giving them the Word of God in their own language.
By priesthood of all believers, Protestants affirm the bold entrance believers have to the throne of God. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only intermediary. He is our only high priest. The Roman Catholic Church robs God of His glory when she intimates that perhaps Mary or saints (but every Christian is a saint) or priests should be approached for access to God. Confession can be made indirectly to God the Father IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. That’s the extent of the necessary “indirectness.” So we see in the Lord’s model prayer and in His contrast of the prayers of the Pharisee and the publican.
As priests, believers do pray for each other. And in my church, when the assembled people communally confess their sins before God–or a disciplined member confesses a personal sin–the pastor who brings God’s Word afterwards brings assurance of God’s forgiveness. The keys of the kingdom are God’s Word and church discipline. By these means the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and locked to the unbelievers and those become apostate.
As priests, believers also offer their lives as living sacrifices to God. They try to love God with all their heart, all their soul, and all their strength. They try to love their neighbours as they do themselves. They keep the law not to gain justification–they are already justified–but because they are thankful and realize that God is good and His ways are good. Thus they begin to live with God and produce the fruits of the Spirit.
Bobby, you were puzzled about my Accusation 5. It’s only there because I had mentioned, near the beginning of this thread, that I didn’t think that Roman Catholics even drank wine at the mass. Some other commenters made a big deal of my aside, and so it became an “accusation” in my list. I do see it as somewhat of a problem because my understanding of the TWO sacrements is that they are physical signs (as were circumcision and the Passover in the Old Testaments) of a spiritual reality. What good does it do to spiritualize the physical token? The Lord Jesus didn’t do so when instituting the Lord’s supper.
Bobby and others, I’m in an Internet shop (because the USB-type cell-phone-card Internet connection I have on my own computer is too slow). I promised my wife I would be home at 1:00 p.m. and it’s 12:51 p.m. here. So I hope to get to Bobby’s last point (in his reply to my points) later. And maybe I’ll yet deal with some comments from the rest of you later. If that’s a cop-out, then it’s a cop-out. There are too many of you!
As a final note, perhaps my tone could be improved. I’m not sure of that, though. I really believe that the pope is an antichrist. And again, that’s standard Protestantism. Roman Catholics ought not to pretend surprise. I’m allied with you in the defense of Judeo-Christian morality, but I regard the Roman Catholic Church as a false church. I should add that there may well be sheep in its midst, but what they are doing in the midst of wolves–get out quick! The Roman Catholic Church has not repented. Wasn’t it the Council of Trent (something like that, I don’t know well) whereby the Roman Catholic Church made official its differences with Protestants?
The catechism’s treatment of the Holy Spirit is extensive: http://goo.gl/9dYpi
Jon, I believe the Roman church errs on much. For that matter, so does the Eastern church. And we Evangelicals are stuck with “in, with, and under” as the best semantics we can contrive. But God has given us a wonderful opportunity, since 1054, to accept unity in Christ as his gift — not our achievement. It’s as real as our salvation despite the rifts in Christendom.
Arguments like this are a good thing — they really, really are. But we should not be mere cobelligerents in the pro-life cause. We don’t deny that our interlocutors are Christians — we challenge each other to prove it. That’s what we do in our own respective communions, through fellowship and encouragement. Argument and polemics between traditions valuably has this — argh, darned moth on the monitor! There, he’s dead — as I say, best has this as its end.
But by way of rebuke, honestly, what the heck is this: “something like that, I don’t know well”? Jon, c’mon. You’re speaking quite liberally (meaning much speech) in critique of a church you haven’t acquainted yourself with sufficiently. I suspect your concerns would be vindicated from your tradition’s perspective were you more literate with Trent, but to confess ignorance while remaining confident in your judgments . . . dude.
By priesthood of all believers, Protestants affirm the bold entrance believers have to the throne of God. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only intermediary. He is our only high priest. The Roman Catholic Church robs God of His glory when she intimates that perhaps Mary or saints (but every Christian is a saint) or priests should be approached for access to God.
Well, Jon, now that you’ve toned down your rhetoric, it might be possible to have an interesting conversation with you. You are still mistaken on just about every point, though.
The Catholic Church does teach the priesthood of all believers. This is from the Dogmatic Constituation of the Church, promulgated at the Second Vatican Council:
“Christ the Lord, High Priest taken from among men, made the new people “a kingdom and priests to God the Father”. The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated as a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, in order that through all those works which are those of the Christian man they may offer spiritual sacrifices and proclaim the power of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light.. .
Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist.” (Lumen Gentium 10).”
At the Mass, the priest is our stand-in for Jesus, the high priest, who constantly intercedes for us in heaven. Because of His sacrifice and intercession, joined with Him, we are enabled to offer his perfect sacrifice to God together with the priest, at our head as Christ is at our head. This is Catholic teaching.
As you can see, nothing here indicates that Catholics need to go through a priest or Mary or the saints to approach God. But we do love asking them to pray for us.
Perfect contrition will gain forgiveness for sin for Catholics, even without the presence of a priest. But we do believe the priest has real power to forgive sins in Christ’s name, because he gave such power to his Apostles. Jesus knew how much we human beings need and desire to make His forgiveness visible and audible. How can we not be grateful for this tremendous gift?
And on that subject, you claimed yesterday that there was no apostolic succession in the Church, that the apostles were an institution intended only to establish the Church in New Testament times. Can you prove any of that from Scritpure? Really, now that you have flung the Heidelberg Catechism and the opinions of John Calvin at us, why don’t you, the famous sola scriptura guy, let us see some serious Scripture slinging? Why don’t you show us where Christ specifically said “the office of apostle is due to expire in 70 A.D. [or whenever]: sorry, no refunds, no returns.” Or you could look at the end of the first chapter of Acts and tell us what you think is going on there.
Jon,
I have no problem with your tone in your latest posts. Thank you for being respectful, and please accept my apologies for being snarky in my most recent post to you. God love you.
Paladin & Bobby:
“Discussions” such as these among those who aspire to advocate for pre-born persons are not worthwhile toward that purpose. Both sides may end up feeling they’ve done their due diligence to evangelize fellow Christians, but at what cost? Uncharitable bells once rung cannot be unrung.
There is an observational comment on the youtube thread itself noting that if this was a muslim call to prayer, every muslim would be immediately on his rug facing Mecca. I’ll bet there were Catholics in that town square too proud to “kneel before Him now.” Shame on them. Protestants who were present knew it was Jesus being elevated in Word even though they may not subscribe to the Real Presence in form of bread. They could have also knelt purely out of reverence for The Name. (Philippians 2: 10-11) Shame on them as well.
Furthermore, if someone reading this blog is physically/actively advocating for babies, no conscience should be convicted or feelings offended. If, however, one is only esoterically jawing online and further splintering the Body of Christ, let her/him take heed. If the shoe fits . . .
Of great importance in these discussions:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
The principle’s application often founders on the shoals of our inferential confidence — especially when “I’ve had this conversation before.” Yes — but not with this particular person.
As Trinitarians, we understand that relationships between persons are as real as the persons themselves, and that shalom in these relationships is the goal of all our doings (Christ’s atonement, most marvelously). No ultimate shalom is possible outside the truth, and our noetic shortcomings this side of heaven guarantee none of us own truth sufficiently to bring shalom to our lives.
The only solution is humility, as far as I can tell.
groovsmyth wrote:
“Discussions” such as these among those who aspire to advocate for pre-born persons are not worthwhile toward that purpose.
No one said that they were, or that they even needed to be. But is it not possible to “walk and chew gum at the same time”? It’s absurd to think that, even on a pro-life blog, all participants are absolutely forbidden to discuss anything outside of explicit pro-life, baby-saving issues, and–with all due respect, friend–you don’t have any right to insist upon anything of the sort. (If that were the case, then every last “break from the daily grind, etc.” would need to be deleted, etc.!)
I also think (with all due respect) that you, exasperated and somewhat overwhelmed by the sheer volume of comments, didn’t read all of them very carefully, and you didn’t quite pick up what happened, who was responding to whom, and why. (To wit: some commenters complained about the Eucharistic Adoration video, and took the occasion to: (1) call it “blasphemy”, (2) call the Catholic Church “a false Church”, (3) call the Pope “antichrist”, and more. Did you seriously expect faithful Catholics (and other Christians of goodwill and even tempers) to allow such errors to go uncorrected, and such insults to go unrebuked? And it’s only natural that such deep topics might also “spin off” a few side topics which pertain more-or-less to the main point.) As such, it’s somewhat understandable (given your exasperation and temporary bad temper) that you complained; but if real, authentic issues have been raised (and that is, in fact, the case, here), then it really isn’t very helpful for you to skim the whole thread (if you did even that), lose patience, and cry, “Feh! A pox on all your houses!!”
Both sides may end up feeling they’ve done their due diligence to evangelize fellow Christians, but at what cost?
I think, if you read many of the comments with a bit more care, you may see that proselytism was *not* the point, at least from most quarters of the discussion.
Uncharitable bells once rung cannot be unrung.
True… and (ironically) I’d gently remind you that you’re bound by that maxim, as well. Rash judgment is not exactly something to which you should aspire, friend.
Furthermore, if someone reading this blog is physically/actively advocating for babies, no conscience should be convicted or feelings offended.
(??) You’ll need to explain what you mean by that; as it stands, it makes very little sense. If I were to defend unborn children vigorously, but then turn around and insult another commenter’s mother, would you hold it against that commenter for feeling offended? Or if a sincere misunderstanding (as so often happens, especially when discussing deep, primal issues such as these) results in temporary hurt feelings, will you presume to sit in judgment over them?
If, however, one is only esoterically jawing online and further splintering the Body of Christ, let her/him take heed. If the shoe fits . . .
I’d add again, friend, that you’re presuming a great deal when you say such things; there is no possible way for you to know whether anyone is “simply jawing esoterically online” (whatever that means, to you) or being sincere and speaking from utter conviction… and, frankly, it smacks a bit of arrogance for you to utter such things. For example: Jon went out of his way to denounce the Catholic Church as “false”, the Pope as “antichrist”, and the like… but even I do not presume to say that he was “simply jawing”; I assume (unless very clear evidence convinces me otherwise) that he was sincere, and speaking from sincere personal zeal (albeit misguided, intemperate and rude… and he seems to be trying to correct that, as we speak).
Perhaps you could read the thread more carefully, before you make such pronouncements and “cover” all listeners under the same anathema? Or, if you’d rather not do that, perhaps you might simply ignore this thread, and move on to one which better suits your tastes?
Rasqual wrote:
Argument and polemics between traditions valuably has this — argh, darned moth on the monitor! There, he’s dead — as I say, best has this as its end.
:) Stop that! You’re seriously stripping my brain gears!
1) read somber comments
2) somberly sip beverage of choice while reading somber comments
3) unsomberly spew beverage of choice at description of moth massacre
4) try to regain composure as Rasqual finishes sentence without missing a beat
…and for those who interjected very kind comments about my comments, I bow in profound thanksgiving! :) (I’d give you all a “shout out”, but I have my reputation as a “stodgy” to maintain, you know.)
Right. We are pro-life, but not necessarily pro-moth. However, we are definitely pro-mirth. ;-)
Bobby said, “Maybe Catholics are wrong in making this distinction, but GIVEN the Catholic understanding that the sacrifice on Calvary is a type of the Jewish sacrifice on yom kippore, it follows quite logically that there should be a slaughtering and a presentation component.”
But is it really only a presentation component, Bobby? Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16) So if that bread becomes the body of Jesus Christ (transubstantiation), then it follows quite logically that in the mass Christ’s body has been broken AGAIN–Christ’s own description of His slaughter: “This is My body, which is broken for You.” Where’s the non-sequitar? Thus the mass is basically nothing but a denial of the ONE sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ.
That’s a very big point in the book of Hebrews. In contrast with the ritual Old Testament shedding of the blood of bulls and goats, the ONE sacrifice of Jesus Christ was completely efficacious. The two Old Testament sacraments of circumcision and the Passover have been replaced by the bloodless sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are means of grace just as the Word of God is; by them the believer’s faith can grow. However, if they automatically dispense grace, then the believer ceases to look backwards in faith to the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ made for all time and instead looks forward to the magic of the mass.
In many Roman Catholic churches, Christ is still portrayed as being upon the cross. At the very least, that cross should be empty. The atonement was made; it is finished. As my former pastor once said, the open tomb is a more fitting symbol of Christianity. What was the reason for changing the day of rest, established at Creation itself, from the seventh day to the first day? The Lord rose on that day; He gave us rest from our sins; we gained assurance of our eternal rest. Yet Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic monk, had no such assurance. He was tormented by doubts. He finally found assurance in the book of Romans, in the Word of God, that book of books which the Roman Catholic Church, the supposed pillar and ground of the truth, was hiding from humanity.
You apologized for being snarky, and I think you were referring to this: “it’s just so tired and lame to keep repeating the same Lorraine Boettner junk.” Let me say that until I looked him up today with Google, I didn’t even know who Loraine Boettner was. When I write the following, I literally quote an English version of the Heidelberg Catechism, which was written in the sixteenth century in Germany, Martin Luther’s homeland:
What difference is there between the Lord’s supper and the papal mass?
ANSWER
The Lord’s supper testifies to us, first, that we have complete forgiveness of all our sins through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which He Himself accomplished on the cross once for all; and, second, that through the Holy Spirit we are grafted into Christ, who with His true body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and this is where He wants to be worshipped. But the mass teaches, first, that the living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins through the suffering of Christ unless He is still offered for them daily by the priests; and, second, that Christ is bodily present in the form of bread and wine, and there is to be worshipped. Therefore the mass is basically nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.
Frederick III, ruler of the most influential German province, commissioned Zacharias Ursinus, professor of theology at the Heidelberg University, and Caspar Olevianus, Frederick’s court preacher, to prepare a catechism for instructing young people and for guiding pastors and teachers. He wanted to preserve and propagate the gains of the Reformation. Although Martin Luther had never intended to cause a secession from the church, God had made from the stones new children for Abraham. I believe in a holy Catholic church drawn from every tribe and nation; the Roman Catholic Church, because it corrupts the Word of God, is a false church. Your religious ancestors burnt mine at the stake; and as the Roman Catholic Church has not repented of her heresies, I will continue to point out her failure to repent of them.
I consider my initial comment (on this thread) posting the above Heidelberg Catechism quote not so much a discussion with other Roman Catholics as a warning to fellow Protestants. That’s well within the bounds of etiquette, I think, if Jill Stanek is a Protestant.
This may very well be my last comment on this thread. And I wrote this one two times because the first time I wrote it I was at a different computer, I forgot to enter my name and e-mail address, Jill’s website rejected it, and the computer wouldn’t give me back my comment when I pressed the “back” button. It was an hour’s work lost, but hopefully the comment’s better the second time around.
Jon,
You’re free to leave at any time, of course… but I’d ask that you read the replies (when time permits, both in the writing and in the reading), at least; “drop bomb, cut, and run” isn’t exactly cricket, you know.
One quick reply to a short comment of yours:
Your religious ancestors burnt mine at the stake;
..and your ancestors burned mine at the stake, and hanged, drew and quartered them, and more. This proves nothing, save for the fact that methods of execution in past ages were rather barbaric, by our standards. Both sides can easily bring up horror-stories of that stripe, and both sides have been known to exaggerate such stories far beyond the historical record.
If you’re going to argue for the truth of your position, then argue logically, and don’t stoop to mere maudlin appeals to the gallery and base emotionalism. (As an example: France’s death penalty, for centuries, was death by being boiled alive; England’s was by being hanged until half-dead, taken down, having one’s abdomen ripped open, having one’s intestines and other organs drawn out and set upon a blazing grill (while alive), and then attaching each arm/leg to a separate horse for dismemberment. These methods were used on all who were deemed “capital criminals”, no matter what their religion might have been.)
“But is it really only a presentation component, Bobby?”
Yes, I would say so.
“Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16) So if that bread becomes the body of Jesus Christ (transubstantiation), then it follows quite logically that in the mass Christ’s body has been broken AGAIN–Christ’s own description of His slaughter: “This is My body, which is broken for You.” Where’s the non-sequitar? Thus the mass is basically nothing but a denial of the ONE sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ.”
Jon, I don’t think I at all understand this argument. Are you saying that physically breaking teh bread would “break” Christ if transubstantiation occurs? I mean, I completely agree with your St Paul quote there. When we break the bread, we are participating in the sacrifice of Christ. It is a continual sacrifice, but teh presentation aspect of it. So given that we TEACH that it is part of teh same sacrifice, I don’t see how it follows that it is denying teh once and for all sacrifice.
“That’s a very big point in the book of Hebrews. In contrast with the ritual Old Testament shedding of the blood of bulls and goats, the ONE sacrifice of Jesus Christ was completely efficacious. The two Old Testament sacraments of circumcision and the Passover have been replaced by the bloodless sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are means of grace just as the Word of God is; by them the believer’s faith can grow.”
Amen, brother! No argument here.
“However, if they automatically dispense grace, then the believer ceases to look backwards in faith to the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ made for all time and instead looks forward to the magic of the mass.”
Magic? Jon, we claim it is a miracle; that is, a suspension of teh laws of nature. I would be cautious about calling the mass “magic”- for if it really is a miracle of God, then you have effectively called the work of God magic.
“In many Roman Catholic churches, Christ is still portrayed as being upon the cross. At the very least, that cross should be empty. ”
It reminds us of the sacrifice he made for us. It doens’t imply he is still crucified; just calls to mind teh great suffering he endured for us.
” Yet Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic monk, had no such assurance. He was tormented by doubts. ”
This was his own, unfortunate, problem. One, I believe, that people look back at today and believe they are able to conjecture that he was maybe obsessive-compulsive. I’m not really sure about that, but the fact is that just because someone can’t use teh system properly does not mean teh system is broken.
“He finally found assurance in the book of Romans, in the Word of God, that book of books which the Roman Catholic Church, the supposed pillar and ground of the truth, was hiding from humanity.”
Is this the “the Church kept teh bible from teh people and had it chained up” argument? There were a lot of bad translations out there, so yes, teh Church was very cautious not to have bad translations circulating. I’m sure you (as do I) would like to ban this new “gender neutral” translation of teh bible. But taht of course is only because we love teh word of God and do not want these corrupt and agenda-driven translations floating around.
“Let me say that until I looked him up today with Google, I didn’t even know who Loraine Boettner was.”
So I should ahve been more clear- pretty much ALL of the anti-Catholic, misinformed, caricatures, etc. of Catholicism can all be traced back to Boettner’s book “Roman Catholicism.” There is pretty much at least 1 error on every single page of that book, and it is RIDDLED with nonsense. The idea behind my comment was that probably you have been reading someone who was influenced by Boettner, buit it was rude and I should not have said it.
“When I write the following, I literally quote an English version of the Heidelberg Catechism, which was written in the sixteenth century in Germany, Martin Luther’s homeland”
Oh I know the Heidelberg… it was written by Zacharius Ursinus, my college’s namesake! I pass by his statue everyday…
“That’s well within the bounds of etiquette”
Yes, it most certainly is, and that is fine. Good journey.
I might also add, ad a quick aside to Bobby’s cogent comments: of the anti-Catholic canards, the “Catholics chained up the Bible to keep it from the people” canard is truly one of the most self-evidently absurd. Surely it’s apparent that, if the “evil priests” truly wished to keep the Bible from the people, they would leave it under lock-and-key in the castle vault, or under the priest’s bed? The reason that copies of the Bible were chained was for the same reason that modern phone-books are chained: to keep them available while preventing theft! Believe me, it would be far easier to prevent theft by keeping the Bible under lock-and-key… or, better yet, especially if the “goal” is to “prevent the laity from hearing, reading (despite probably being illiterate) and learning the Scriptures”: it would have been far easier for a totalitarian “Church” to destroy all copies but a few (or even one), and charge admission for the privilege of viewing the “Sacred Book” from afar!
I adore and love Christ in the Eucharist. This video was moving. Thank you Jill for posting!