UPDATE, 3/24, 9:00a: Daughter Daena remains in town this morning for the remainder of our Easter weekend, and I'll be traveling this afternoon to speak tomorrow at the TN Right to Life's Pro-Life Women's Day on the Hill tomorrow.

So I'm moving the Long Weekend Question up for one more day, and this will be my only post today.

In consideration of Easter, this weekend's question:

Christianity worships the one true God. God who sent His one and only son Jesus to hang on a cross for all of our sins. HE ROSE TO LIFE after his death. My faith is based on this fact. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is what separates Christianity from other religions. HE IS RISEN!

I don't think any other religion makes that claim.

apparently, its that we're the only ones within the pro-life movement...

In Christianity God reveals Himself to man in a most tender and personal way, by becoming man.

In Christianity the dignity of humans is elevated to that of being adopted sons and daughters of God.

"I don't think any other religion makes that claim."

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that all religions claim to be the one true faith.

Christians have the privilege to love, worship and serve a thrice-holy God. The Godhead has separate functions but are in perfect unity. Christianity's pinnacle moments was when God the Son willingly died (part of God actually died - I doubt any other religions would even want to acknowledge such a possibility) and Resurrection Sunday which confirmed that everything that Jesus said during His earthly ministry was true. The OT and NT eventually came into understanding and tie together perfectly. Without the Resurrection of Jesus, we have no hope and our faith is in vain. But we DO have a Risen Savior who came to serve and give His life a ransom for many - He shall be forever praised for sparing us a life in hell and a life separated forever from His love and the love of those who also have been saved by His great mercy. I love you Lord!

@Greg: Muslims are pro-life as well (believe it or not, they are very much against abortion). Hinduism is also a pro-life religion, although apparently many in India "forget" that little tenet that abortion is a grave sin when they have those sex-selection abortions to make sure they get a male heir (*vomit*).

But as to the question, Christians are different because they believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah and that he died for our sins. No other religion does, and other than that little tid-bit Christianity is similar to most world religions except Scientology...which is not a religion but a cult.

Only Christianity teaches you to love your enemy.

Other religions teach you to either hate your enemy (antipathy) or merely tolerate them (apathy).

The cross is the universal symbol of Christianity. It's almost impossible to go anywhere without seeing it on a steeple or headstone. So how did an instrument of torture come to represent forgiveness and hope for so many? After all, we don't wear little gold guillotines round our necks or display replicas of firing squads on our church walls. The answer can be found in the cross itself. Its horizontal beam symbolizes the breadth of God's love - it includes us all. Its vertical beam symbolizes the height and depth of His love - it reaches from the highest to the lowest of us. It's why God can be just and merciful without lowering His standards, and why He can redeem us without sanctioning our sin. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn 3:16). Thankfully it doesn't say God loved only the wealthy or the famous or the beautiful or the sober, or we'd all be in trouble! No, if you live in the "world" you're included!

Jesus didn't have to die, He chose to! He told his captors, "I could ask my Father for thousands of angels..and he would send them instantly...But if I did, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that describe what is happening now?" Max Lucado writes, "The force behind the hammer wasn't an angry mob...the hand squeezing the handle wasn't a Roman infantryman...the verdict...wasn't decided by jealous Jews. Jesus himself chose the nails...Had the soldier hesitated Jesus himself would have swung the mallet." That's how much He loves you.

Here's the part I don't get. God can do anything, so Jesus didn't have to die for our sins, he could have dealt with them anyway he wished. Why didn't he just run a marathon for our sins or something?

(and isn't it cheating to say you're dying for our sins if you know you're not really dying and will have ever lasting life in heaven?)

He didn't promise He would stay dead, Hal. In fact, He was very clear before the crucifixion that He would rise again after three days. This is a HUGE part of Christianity.

I think because it is the only religion based on someone else's sacrificial love for us. It is not based on "self love" or "self realization" or "self deification", but at the same time it is different from pagan religions in that our God LOVES us. He is not arbitrary, petty, and does not have a fallen human nature. He does not demand that we offer our war prisoners as a sacrifice to seal our victory. He does not demand that we force people to go through the motions of worship and conquer the world. He is not after empty actions, but is after our hearts.

God IS Love.

Our God is a personal God. It is a turning point in the OT when Abraham makes an altar, and Melchizadek comes... at that time, all of the other gods were tied to places or things, but our God can be worshipped anywhere, any time. He is God for all peoples. Chrisitianity is the fulfillment of God's covenant with His people, Israel, and has continuity to the beginning of people.

Also, Christianity has the Church, and we are all brothers and sisters. We can help each other, pray for each other, encourage each other through the Church even if we don't even know the other person! Our Church has a great spiritual treasury that is ALL of our heritage (not just a few upper caste members, or a very few elect.)

Hal,
No other religions worship a God who came to earth as a man, was crucified, dead and buried and rose again. He lives!

Hal,
Because God is infinite, our offenses against him (sin) are also infinite. In order to "solve" the problem of sin (us saying NO to God's love) it requires a blood sacrifice. In OT times, the blood sacrifice was a lamb or other animal. But that was just a temporary fix.

Because Jesus was God, his sacrifice is infinitely holy. An infinitely holy sacrifice is required, and Jesus Christ loved us enough to make that sacrifice. He was the only One who could.

I posted on my blog about this a little bit last month:
I Guess He Didn't Get the Memo

I know I'm missing a lot of points on the atonement, but this is a HUGE subject for a combox! Some more in depth info is here:

Atonement Catholic Encyclopedia

However, the article assumes familiarity with the Scriptures.

Hal,
Because God is infinite, our offenses against him (sin) are also infinite. In order to "solve" the problem of sin (us saying NO to God's love) it requires a blood sacrifice. In OT times, the blood sacrifice was a lamb or other animal. But that was just a temporary fix.

Because Jesus was God, his sacrifice is infinitely holy. An infinitely holy sacrifice is required, and Jesus Christ loved us enough to make that sacrifice. He was the only One who could.

I posted on my blog about this a little bit last month:
I Guess He Didn't Get the Memo

I know I'm missing a lot of points on the atonement, but this is a HUGE subject for a combox!

Hal, you ask some profound questions!

> God can do anything, so Jesus didn't have to die for our sins, he could have dealt with them anyway he wished. Why didn't he just run a marathon for our sins or something?

I am no theologian, and I don't even know if this is correct, but I think the way God chose to do this was more for us....we are human, and this was a way to reach us through our humanity.

As to the weekend question....(this isn't the only reason) Christianity is the only religion that if practiced, would bring genuine peace, respect for human life, and advancment of civilization (Christianity had a huge influence on science, art, literature, etc.) It (He) is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

God is Holy. That means He is set apart and different from everything in the universe. In Him there is no darkness, He is entirely light. His realm is eternity. The past, present and future are all the same to Him. We have a difficult time understanding this because it is not in our realm of experience, however, all you have to do is study the theory of relativity and you'll get a glimpse of the inifinite.

God created humankind. We sinned, i.e., we disobeyd His loving command designed to protect us (now remember that the past, present and future are all the same to Him so when we sinned doesn't matter). Because of this and because of God's ultimate integrity He has no choice but to banish us from His Kingdom, for darkness and light cannot co-exist. By definition, where there is light, there is no darkness and vice versa. The place of banishment is called Hell. Where God lives is called Heaven. Both are eternal states which means there is no method of escape or change via time or matter. That's it, forever.

Because He loved us so much and wants to be with us, God had to find a way to eternally punish or destroy our sin but at the same time have eternal fellowship with us. He solved the dilemma by giving Himself on the cross to die. This is the ultimate expression of love and there are no human words available to desribe what He did for all of us. This cannot be understood fully on a mental level, it's a heart thing. That's why He beckons us to let go of fears and our defense mechanisms, fostered on us by a cruel world, and let Him in, for He is as gentle as a dove.

Because He died, and was resurrected, we now have the hope of eternal life. It's guaranteed!

This is how 12, ordinary, sinful and discouraged men before the resurrection were able to change the world after the resurrection. They saw the light! This is how a murderous and vengeful Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus, became one of the greatest men who ever lived, Paul. This is how I, a selfish and sinful man, has grown to love Him more and more each day.

This is the power of Easter!!!!!!

This is Christianity in a nutshell. It is not a religion as many in the world have so pitifully tried to make it, it is a revelation of God's design for relationship with Him.

It's hard for us to understand, however, faith makes up for our limited understanding. How could we, who are limited and finite, understand an infinte God? He begs us to trust Him by believing in (which is not just mental ascent but a total surrender of our lives) Christ. I do and though He slay me I will trust him.

I urge the whole world to do the same thing while you have time.

Simply say this prayer out loud:

"Dear God: I admit and confess that I have sinned against you by breaking your commandments, even one. I believe in my heart that Jesus Christ is your Son, that you sent Him to die for me and that you raised Him from the dead. I now ask for your forgiveness and ask you to come into my heart and be my Savior and Lord. I confess with my mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord. Thank you Lord."

Now, go find a Bible based church where Christ is proclaimed. Stay away from Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism. In obedience be baptized by total immersion. If you were sprinkled or christened as an infant it is incumbent on you to now be baptized by immersion in obedience to God's Word. Start attending that church regulary for the purposes of growing and mantaining your new found faith. Read God's word every day, talk to God all the time as you would a friend. He will direct your paths and promises to never, ever leave or forsake you.

If you are a Catholic, go to your priest and insist that you now be immersed in water. If he refuses, leave that church for they are not following God's Word.

Amen.

Ellie:

As things fall to the ground in obedience to the law of gravity, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 9:22 "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

This is why sin is so offensive to God and we should take it so, so seriously. It takes the shedding of blood to cover over sin.

It took the shedding of One's innocent blood

This is why I am so anti-abortion. It is a grave and extremely serious sin, which while forgiveable, should be avoided at all costs. For it cost my Savior dearly on the cross.

The Sacrifice of Christ is hard to understand if you do not understand the nature of Christ. He is God from God, he is Light from Light, and he is true God from true God. He is of the same being with the Father.

If you understand that Jesus is, was, and always will be God, then you understand that his Sacrifice was the Sacrifice of God himself. God, being infinite, could have redeemed us of our sins in other ways, but He chose to become a man to show us how much he loves us. The Eternal Word of God was incarnated in the flesh and lived as a man, equal to us in all ways but sin. He willingly took the sins of the world on his own body. In his death he destroyed our death, and in his rising he restored our life.

If you don't understand that Jesus is God, it might seem cruel that God asked him to die on the Cross. But if know that Jesus is God, then you know that God Himself suffered in order to redeem us.

That is the difference between Christianity and every other religion.

Christianity is the only religion that if practiced, would bring genuine peace, respect for human life, and advancment of civilization (Christianity had a huge influence on science, art, literature, etc.)

Actually, in the golden age of Islam, peace and tolerance reigned, and it was Muslims who were inventing advanced mathematics while the Christians were imprisoning folks like Galileo for suggesting that the Earth might not be at the center of the universe. Thinking of Buddhism, among others, it seems to me that you have a lot to learn about world religions before making such a sweeping statement.

Let's see, well...

Jesus claimed to BE GOD in the flesh. He died in our place. Man cannot become a god, but God did become a man in order to redeem us. Also, Jesus rose again from the dead. Other world religions have reincarnation in their beliefs, etc, but they do not have their leaders returning from the dead in the same bodies. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is among one of the most documented and observed events in history.

Also, Christianity shows to us that man cannot save himself...many other world religions find man consistently reaching and striving to be "good enough" to attain whatever goal their religion has in mind. Christianity comes from the viewpoint that man cannot save himself...that we cannot repair the damage of original sin. If we could save ourselves or "work" ourselves to salvation, Christ would never have come to take our place and our punishment.

HisMan, would you say that the following makes for an appropriate sinner's prayer for the sake of being born again?

I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. Glory to God in the highest and peace to His people on Earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father. We worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world. Have mercy on us. You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Ray, I see that your Marxist professors have brainwashed you well. Bravo for them!

The real story about Galileo and the Catholic Church if anyone's interested:

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

What seperates Christianity from all other world religions, is that Christianity follows the teachings of Christ.

Jesus said,

I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." (John 14:6)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

John 6:47-48
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48 I am that bread of life.

Any religion that takes away from this, or adds to this, is not true Christianity.

"Only Christianity teaches you to love your enemy."

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Buddhism is an example.

Ray, I see that your Marxist professors have brainwashed you well. Bravo for them!

Marxist professors? Actually the teacher of my first world religions class in high school was Jewish.

The real story about Galileo and the Catholic Church if anyone's interested:

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

Wow, who knew the Catholics were so good at spin? The fact remains that Galileo died under house arrest by the church, and that the ban on publishing his works was not lifted until 1718! Certainly the church today has removed itself from stating official positions on scientific matters that might not agree with biblical passages, but it wasn't this way.

Back to my original point, it was Islamic mathematicians, between roughly 600 and 1600, that gave us algebra, trigonometry, and calculus, among other branches of math. While this was going on, the Christians were busy crusading in the Middle East, and burning heretics at the stake (NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!)

And even more to my original point, historically, Christianity has had no monopoly on peace or respect for human life, much less scientific advancement.

Looking at it another way, what separates Christianity from most other world religions is cannibalism. Christians believe in the figurative, literal, and/or miraculous (take your pick) transformation of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus, which they then eat. Granted, Jesus told them to do this, and it is done in ceremony with great pomp and circumstance, but the fact remains that it amounts to the symbolic eating of human flesh. I'd say this is fairly unique.

Looking at it another way, what separates Christianity from most other world religions is cannibalism. Christians believe in the figurative, literal, and/or miraculous (take your pick) transformation of bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus, which they then eat. Granted, Jesus told them to do this, and it is done in ceremony with great pomp and circumstance, but the fact remains that it amounts to the symbolic eating of human flesh. I'd say this is fairly unique.

Ray,
Not ALL Christians believe this. I think that it's prevelant in the Roman Catholic Church. However, I, as a born-again Christian, took what Jesus said to be figuratively. We are to do this in "rememberance of Him". I don't believe for a second that Jesus comes over and over again to be sacrificed at the beckoning command of a priest and be put in a gold container with a glass window.

I, personally, am appalled by this statement:

"Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. (Cardinal John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., (Huntington, IN 1974), pp. 255-256)

The scriptures tell us:

Hebrews 10:11-12 [11] Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. [12] But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

Hebrews 9:24-28 [24] For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. [25] Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. [26] Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, [28] so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

I also agree with your statement regarding cannibalism. This was a ritual practiced in pagan beliefs long before Christ ever came.

Ray, I see that your knowledge of world religious history comes mainly from Monty Python sketches. If you want to be educated, you should try reading my link instead of ignoring it as "Catholic spin". Still, if want to exercise your right to choose to remain ignorant, that's up to you.

Catholics are cannibals? Haha... haven't heard that one in awhile. That would be the case if transubstantiation was a physical change. It's not. You can plainly tell that a transubstantiated Communion wafer is still physically a piece of bread. Transubstantiation is a spiritual transformation, wherein, yes, the bread and wine do indeed become the Body and Blood of Christ. Just not physically. Most people get this confused because Jesus is physically present through the Eucharist, but that doesn't mean that the Eucharist is physically flesh and blood.

John:

That's a canned Catholic prayer in which I can find no Biblical fault. I would have no problem praying that prayer every day, however, I prefer to pray the words the Spirit gives me and not a prayer that someone else wrote. I also like to talk to God every possible waking moment as a friend and counselor and not obsessively or compulsively. Canned prayers have a way of turning into that.

However, regarding your question about whether or not the prayer can be used as a sinner's prayer unto salvation, I don't know for it lacks an explicit confession that the penitent believes in his his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, however, it is implied by the term, "Lamb of God". However, God is not a legalist but a lover of our souls, however, I cannot hosestly answer that question without direct Bibliacal confirmation. This is how I think Catholics deviate from the faith, they inject their opinion as truth.

See Romans 10:9 which states that, "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

John,
Thank you for your explanation. I guess it just gets a bit confusing when one reads this:

"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: 'Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

When I read that, I believe that a physical change takes place. In many Christian churches, the doctrine holding that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, although their appearances remain the same. So, from what I understand, you believe that even though it looks like a cracker and wine, it is actually the physical body and blood of Jesus, based on the definition and the Council of Trent's statement. So, in essence, there is a physical change, right?

HisMan, I actually combined bits from two "canned" Catholic prayers. But since your prayer was also "canned", in that you put quotation marks around a specific prayer to be prayed, I fail to see the difference. Anyway, I should have added a bit from this third Catholic prayer:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end."

I've heard some Protestants say that Catholics are not saved, because we are not "born again", because we have never recited a "sinner's prayer". Yet we recite the equivalent of a "sinner's prayer" at nearly every Catholic Mass.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing with you about Catholic vs. Protestant stuff, especially on the day before Easter, but I just wanted to make that one point.

JLM, we believe that the Eucharist is Jesus, but not that it is physically flesh and blood. I suppose you could argue that there is a "physical change" since Jesus is physically present, but that would be in a different sense than a typical physical change wherein the physical properties of a substance become different.

Here's an easy way to dispel the "cannibalism" myth. If we really believed that the Eucharist was physically flesh and blood, we would not be allowed to receive it on Fridays during Lent, since we are forbidden from eating meat on those days. Yet there is no problem with a priest performing Mass on Lenten Fridays, or anyone receiving the Eucharist on a Lenten Friday. That's because the Eucharist is not physically flesh. It's a spiritual transformation.

Jesus said that when He ascended into Heaven at the right hand of the Father that He would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit.

Why then, does that Catholic Church think that Jesus then comes in full physical presence in the communion wafer? Is there a need for the simultaneous presence of the Holy Spirit and Jesus? Why then did Jesus say that He would send the Holy Spirit if He knew He would be present in the communinon wafers and wine?

Where does the Bible state explicitly that the bread and wine is turned into the body and blood of Christ? How does a command to have a memorial service, i.e., "do this in remembrance of me" turn into full blown transubstantiation? I know we "proclaim His death until He comes" in the communino service but again, I don't see how transubstatiation is necessary to 1) remember Him and what He did and 2) procalim His death.

Also, how long after the church started on teh day of Pentecost in AD 33 did the doctrine of transubstatiation come into being?

And I hate to be gross but what does the communion turn into as it exits the body? If this is truly the body and blood of Christ why would we allow it to be defiled, especially when the Word says that Jesus' body did not suffer decay in the womb after He was crucified. Obviuously the Father was extremely concerned with the condition of Jesus' flesh and what would happen to it if natural forces were allowed their process. Isn't this blasphemous?

Finally, why is it necessary to reenact Christ's death over and over again in the mass when the Bible specifically states that he died once for all. Why all the unncecceary constructs unless the varying superstitious theological contexts were created over time to allay fears, answer questions, soothe doubt, etc. apart from direct application and trust of God's Word. Do you think that the clergy, who were usually the only literate ones in society did this as a means of holding onto their power and wealth?

Look, I am an engineer. I am trained to think logically. Most of Catholic Theology, where it deviates from Scripture, makes absolutely no sense at all. Now, having said that I agree with the bulk of Catholic Theology where it agrees with Scripture. Fortunately most of the agreement is in the important stuff and I have learned much from my Catholic brtheren. I don't think there is another church in the world that does the amount of good that the Catholic Church does where it involves the poor and needy and teh unborn. In fact, I would say that I agree more with Catholic Theology than I do with Lutheran, Presbyterian, and most main line Protestant Theologies.

John,
Thank for explaining that to me!
I appreciate it!!!

I was under the impression that Catholics thought it was really the flesh and blood of Jesus they were consuming. Your explanation makes more sense to me that it is done in "remembrance" of Him, and not "actually" physically digesting Him.

Thank you again!
:)

Further, I think Catholic Theology is closer to teh Word of God than most if not all of the main line Protestant Theologies.

In fact, I think Christian fundamentalism is closer to Catholic Theology in regards to marriage, abortion, homosexuality, the Supremacy of Christ, the treatment of the poor and needy, etc., than that of most main line Protestant churches which I think most of which, not all, have lost their minds.

So my Catholic friends, when I challenge your theology please see is my way of nudging you closer to God's Word and away from a dependence on man's opinions.

And John, correct me if I am wrong, but the wafer and wine becomes the literal body and blood of Christ. This is what I was taught as a Catholic for 23 years.

Stephanie, Buddhism does not teach you to love your enemy. It teaches apathy, namely tolerance and pacifism. If an enemy enters your home and starts killing your family, you do not show love by permitting the enemy to have his way. Rather you show love by defending your family, even putting your own life down for them if necessary.

John:

Never once have I stated that Catholics were not saved. This is ridculous. However, I would say that there are many Catholics who believe that there way is the only way. I believe that Christ is the only way.

I just think Catholic Theology deviates substantailly from Scripture and adds to it when it is simply not neccessary.

I agree fully with the prayer you posted. It is completely Biblical.

I term a canned prayer one that is given the "Nihil Obstat" seal of approval by the Catholic Church. I don't have a problem with these, however, I think God appreciates a heart felt conversation with His child more than with something just simply read out of a missal or book of prayer. When one reads such a prayer out of a book or even from memory they would do well to think heartily about what they are saying and mean every word, otherwise one is wasting their time and breath for God does not hear such prayers.

I've heard some Protestants say that Catholics are not saved, because we are not "born again", because we have never recited a "sinner's prayer". Yet we recite the equivalent of a "sinner's prayer" at nearly every Catholic Mass.

But John, I was told by Catholics that "once saved always saved" is a Protestant myth. So, in reality, I guess it depends on what time you are talking to the Catholic, no?

No prob, JLM. It can be very difficult to understand. We do worship the Eucharist as being Jesus himself, but it's not physically flesh and blood, as any simple examination can tell you.

Now I'll make the attempt to answer all of HisMan's concerns, eventhough I said I didn't want to have this discussion today. I'll be using the KJV Bible for quotes:

1 - "Jesus said that when He ascended into Heaven at the right hand of the Father that He would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit."

True. I have no problem with that.

2 - "Why then, does that Catholic Church think that Jesus then comes in full physical presence in the communion wafer? Is there a need for the simultaneous presence of the Holy Spirit and Jesus? Why then did Jesus say that He would send the Holy Spirit if He knew He would be present in the communinon wafers and wine?"

Yep. Jesus sent the Advocate, aka the Holy Spirit, to the Apostles. But Jesus also commanded his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood:

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."

-John 6: 51-56

This resulted in many of his disciples turning away from him:

"Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"

"From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

-John 6:60,66

The typical Protestant interpretation of this passage is that Jesus was using a metaphor, asking his disciples to believe in him. Hence they put the emphasis on this part:

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

-John 6:64-65

Yet that fails to explain why people who were already his disciples would leave, or why his words would offend them so much. How could his disciples be offended if he was merely speaking metaphorically?

3 - Where does the Bible state explicitly that the bread and wine is turned into the body and blood of Christ?

That depends on your interpretation of the events of the Last Supper. The Protestant interpretation is that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he said "This is my body". We Catholics disagree. We think that Jesus instituted the Eucharist during the Last Supper.

4 - "How does a command to have a memorial service, i.e., "do this in remembrance of me" turn into full blown transubstantiation?"

Ah, but it's only your interpretation that it's merely a memorial service. The Protestant interpretation focuses on the words "do this in remembrance of me", yet those words are not explicit in themselves. We Catholics don't ignore those words. In fact, those words are used during the transubstantiation at every Catholic Mass! We just interpret those words in a different way. We think that Jesus told the Apostles to transubstantiate the Eucharist in memory of him.

5 - "I know we "proclaim His death until He comes" in the communino service but again, I don't see how transubstatiation is necessary to 1) remember Him and what He did and 2) procalim His death."

We do it because he told us to do it. Paul talks about the Eucharist in one of his letters:

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

-1 Corinthians 11:23-29

How can a man eat bread and drink wine "unworthily"? Why must a man "examine" himself before doing so, or else risk damnation?

Paul also wrote:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

-1 Corinthians 10:16

It would seem that Paul found this ritual to be rather important, whether or not you believe in transubstantiation.

6 - "Also, how long after the church started on teh day of Pentecost in AD 33 did the doctrine of transubstatiation come into being?"

You're not going to like this answer, but it was done from the foundation of Christianity:

"It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us. For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is my body.'' Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone."

-St. Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 2nd century

"For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the Flesh and Spirit. For as bread which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection to eternity ... Even as the blessed Paul declares in his epistle to the Ephesians that ‘We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones’: he does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but he refers to that dispensation by which the Lord became an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones, - that flesh which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from bread which is his body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling on the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of the Christ."

-St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2nd century AD

7 - "And I hate to be gross but what does the communion turn into as it exits the body? If this is truly the body and blood of Christ why would we allow it to be defiled, especially when the Word says that Jesus' body did not suffer decay in the womb after He was crucified."

That's another good reason why the Eucharist is spiritually flesh and not physically flesh. So we don't have to worry about that question.

8 - "Obviuously the Father was extremely concerned with the condition of Jesus' flesh and what would happen to it if natural forces were allowed their process. Isn't this blasphemous?"

It might be, if the Eucharist were physically flesh.

9 - "Finally, why is it necessary to reenact Christ's death over and over again in the mass when the Bible specifically states that he died once for all."

Because Jesus told us to do it.

10 - "Why all the unncecceary constructs unless the varying superstitious theological contexts were created over time to allay fears, answer questions, soothe doubt, etc. apart from direct application and trust of God's Word. Do you think that the clergy, who were usually the only literate ones in society did this as a means of holding onto their power and wealth?"

Do you think that Paul was the kind of person who would do something like that?

11 - "Look, I am an engineer. I am trained to think logically. Most of Catholic Theology, where it deviates from Scripture, makes absolutely no sense at all."

So... speaking scientifically, it makes sense that Jesus is God and that he took his sins on to his body and saved us from them by dying on a cross? Why is it so easy for you to believe that Jesus can die for our sins, but when it comes to the Eucharist, that makes absolutely no sense and is illogical? If you ask me, Jesus allowing his body to become covered with our sins in the forms of wounds and then him destroying those sins through his death and resurrection is a million times more miraculous than the Eucharist.

12 - "Now, having said that I agree with the bulk of Catholic Theology where it agrees with Scripture. Fortunately most of the agreement is in the important stuff and I have learned much from my Catholic brtheren. I don't think there is another church in the world that does the amount of good that the Catholic Church does where it involves the poor and needy and teh unborn. In fact, I would say that I agree more with Catholic Theology than I do with Lutheran, Presbyterian, and most main line Protestant Theologies."

Well, thanks for throwing me a bone. I'll close by saying that I take offense at it when someone suggests that my Church is not "Bible-based". That Catholic Church compiled the books of the Bible in the first place; to say that we aren't "Bible-based" is absurd. You disagree with some of our interpretations, just as we disagree with some of yours, but frankly I find it to be bigoted to say that we're not "Bible-based" since our Catholic Church relies on Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium, and Tradition. Heck, any Protestant who uses the word "Trinity" is also relying on "Tradition" to an extent, since that word is not in the Bible, nor is the concept expressly stated. The very fact that the Bible is not clear about the Trinity is what leads Mormons to disbelieve in it.

JLM said: "But John, I was told by Catholics that "once saved always saved" is a Protestant myth. So, in reality, I guess it depends on what time you are talking to the Catholic, no?"

Well, sort of. There are false conversions. Plus it's possible that a person could recite a "sinner's prayer" or something similar and be completely committed and faithful to the words spoken, but then come to abandon God later on in life. That's why we don't believe that simply uttering one prayer at some point in your life guarantees salvation.

I was just trying to apply Protestant theology to Catholic individuals. My point was that we Catholics are saved by that Protestant theology that states you must be "born again" in order to be saved. I vaguely recall some Protestant talk radio show host getting into trouble for saying that he didn't know whether or not Pope John Paul II went to Heaven, since he didn't know if he was "born again". Yet as I've shown, by the Protestant reckoning, Catholics are indeed "born again".

HisMan...referring to our Catholic prayers as being "canned" is rather petty, don't you think?

The word CATHOLIC means universal. This means that you can be in any country on Earth and the Mass and other rituals will be performed/celebrated the same way. These prayers are worded as such to profess the doctrines that we as a UNIVERSAL church accept, can utilize when worshipping en masse in COMMUNION with one another and shared by all.

We are in NO WAY limited to ONLY these formal expressions of prayer, and ARE encouraged to utilize our own personal prayers if and when we see fit.

Formal type group prayer is utilized when we GATHER as a CHURCH to worship as a BODY of Christians.

Since you say you were raised Catholic, you should know this already. This premise is universally taught and accepted by the Catholic Church.

Ray,
You might become more enlightened about the Catholic Church's contribution to Western Society by reading
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. by Thomas E. Woods Phd.

On the contribution of Islam to science Woods writes the following:
"The fact is, however, that the contributions of Muslim scienctists typically occurred in spite of Islam rather than because of it. Orthodox Islamic scholars absolutely rejected any conception of the universe that involved consistent physical laws, because the absolute autonomy of Allah could not be restricted by natural laws. Apparent natural laws were nothing more than mere habits so to speak, of Allah, and might be discontinued at any time." p. 79

Christianity brought with it a completely different outlook on the world and the universe as compared with the ancient cultures. Wisdom 11:21 states "that God is said to have ordered all things by measure, number, weight"
Christianity believed in a rational ordered universe something many societies did not understand or realize. This idea is central to the incredible development of science. Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu and Mayan cultures did not believe in a Creator who endowed creation with consistent physical laws which could be discovered. Instead they thought of the world as a organism dominated by gods who went through endless cycles of birth, death and rebirth. These ancient cultures were characterized by an animism - created things had a mind of their own and therefore the idea of fixed physical laws was foreign and never occured to them.

John I've enjoyed reading your posts today. Good job!

"Stephanie, Buddhism does not teach you to love your enemy. It teaches apathy, namely tolerance and pacifism. If an enemy enters your home and starts killing your family, you do not show love by permitting the enemy to have his way. Rather you show love by defending your family, even putting your own life down for them if necessary."

Cranky, I don't understand. Please explain further?

John, no bone was thrown, just truth stated. Here's some more truth as taught in the Bible:

The Bible encourages believers to study the "whole counsel" of God's Word and to "test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Every believer is to "be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15). To obey God's command to test all things, we will search the Scriptures to determine what the Bible teaches concerning the Lord's Supper.

The Last Supper was celebrated by first century Christians in obedience to Jesus' words "do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19). This observance was established by the Lord at the Last Supper when He symbolically offered Himself as the Paschal Lamb of atonement. His actual death the next day fulfilled the prophecy. Only Paul uses the phrase "Lord's Supper" although it is alluded to in Revelation 19:9, where we are told that believers will celebrate the "marriage supper of the Lamb." Church fathers began to call the occasion the "Eucharist" meaning "thanksgiving" from the blessing pronounced over the bread and wine after about A.D. 100. Christians have celebrated the Lord's Supper regularly as a sign of the new covenant sealed by Christ's death and resurrection.
Today, the Eucharist means far more than simply thanksgiving.

So what exactly did Jesus ordain during the Last Supper? Here is the Bible's description of the events surrounding the Lord's Supper. At the Last Supper "[Jesus] took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, 'This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.'" (Luke 22: 19, 20). This is strong language indeed and not to be taken lightly for "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…" (2 Timothy 3:16).

And if Jesus wasn't clear enough about His body and blood at the Last Supper, He certainly left no room for doubt when He spoke about His flesh and blood, recorded in the sixth chapter of John's Gospel:

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world." The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?" Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed." (John 6: 51-55).

Repeatedly Jesus stated that His flesh is food and His blood drink. Taken together, these verses certainly seem to affirm that Jesus is truly present in the consecrated host. But, before putting the matter to rest, we must investigate the whole counsel of God.

Throughout the Bible, context determines meaning. Bible-believing Christians know to take the Bible literally unless the context demands a symbolic interpretation. Before exploring Jesus' words in John chapter 6 and elsewhere, let's review a few examples of symbolism in the Scriptures. All scholars would agree that the following verses are metaphorical. An explanation follows each verse.

Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good (Ps 34:8).

(Try and experience God's promises to find if they are true.)

"Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life" (John 4:14).

(For those who receive the gift of salvation, Christ's Spirit shall dwell in their souls assuring them of everlasting life.)

Moreover He said to me, "Son of man, eat what you find; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that scroll (Ezekiel 3:1, 2).

(Receive into your heart, internalize, and obey God's Word.)

It is apparent from searching the entire council of God that the Lord often uses metaphors and symbolic language to paint images for the reader. When the Bible says God hides us under His wings, we know that God is not a bird with feathers. However, the Bible should always be interpreted literally unless the context demands a symbolic explanation. So what does the context of John's Gospel and the other Gospels demand?

John Chapter 6

If we read the entire sixth chapter of John's Gospel, we not only get the context, but also some startling insights into what Jesus meant when He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. John chapter 6, begins with the account of Jesus feeding five thousand, followed by the account of Jesus walking on water. Starting in verse 22, we find that on the following day, people were seeking Jesus for the wrong reasons, which we understand from Jesus' words in verses 26 and 27: "you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for food which perishes, but for food which endures to everlasting life."

These verses begin to frame the context of the verses that follow, specifically, that Jesus emphasized the need for them to seek eternal life. Jesus goes on to explain to them how to obtain eternal life, and in verse 28, when the people ask Jesus "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus replies (verse 29) "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent."

Here Jesus specifies that there is only one work that pleases God, namely, belief in Jesus. Jesus re-emphasizes this in verse 35 "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." Notice the imperative is to "come to Me" and "believe in Me." Jesus repeats the thrust of His message in verse 40 where He states - "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Jesus could not be more clear - by coming to Him and trusting in Him we will receive eternal life. At this point in the chapter, the Jews complained about Him because He said: "I am the bread which came down from heaven." (verse 41). Jesus responds to their murmuring in verses 42 through 58, where he states that He is indeed the "living bread" and that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to obtain eternal life. However, let's remember the context of this statement. First, Jesus contrasts Himself with the manna that rained down on their fathers and sustained them for their journey, but their fathers are now dead. While Jesus offers Himself as the living bread, which, if they eat, will cause them to live forever.

Jesus is not the perishable manna that their descendants ate in the wilderness, He is the eternal bread of life that lives forever. Only by partaking in His everlasting life can we hope to live with Him forever. This contrast strengthens His main message, which is recorded in verse 47 where Jesus says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." Notice, Jesus said that as soon as we believe in Him we have, present tense, eternal life. It is not something we aim at or hope we might attain in the future, but rather, something we receive immediately upon believing.

When Jesus said these words, He was in the synagogue in Capernaum (verse 59), and He had neither bread nor wine. Therefore Jesus was either commanding cannibalism or He was speaking figuratively. If He was speaking literally, then He would be directly contradicting God the Father: "you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (Genesis 9:4). Therefore, because Jesus Himself said, "the Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35), He must be speaking metaphorically. And that is exactly how He explains His own words in the subsequent verses.

After this, in verse 60, we find that many of His disciples said - "This is a hard saying; who can understand it?" Jesus was aware of their complaints and He responded in verses 61 through 64 saying - "Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Wait a minute, the flesh profits nothing! I thought Jesus said we must eat His flesh? Yet, if the flesh profits nothing, Jesus must be speaking in spiritual terms. And that is exactly what He says - "The words that I speak to you are spirit."

Jesus uses the exact same Greek word for flesh ("sarx") as He did in the preceding verses. Therefore we must conclude that eating His literal flesh profits nothing! If the Lord Himself sets the context of the dialogue, we would do well to hear Him. He said that the words that He speaks are spirit and that the flesh profits nothing.

If that isn't clear enough, Peter's words allow no room for doubt. Immediately following the dialogue with the Jews, in which some disciples went away, Jesus said to the twelve apostles - "Do you also want to go away?" (verse 67). Peter's response is profound. His reply to Jesus is recorded in verse 68 - "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Amazing! Peter did not say we have come to believe that we must eat Your flesh to live. He said that we know You are the Christ, and we have come to believe in You as the Christ.

This is the confession of faith that leads to eternal life, not eating Jesus' flesh and drinking His blood. It also agrees with the totality of Scripture. Here is a brief sampling:

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10: 9).

What must I do to be saved?…Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved (Acts 16: 30, 31).

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life (John 3: 36).

In John chapter 6, Jesus clearly contrasted the temporary benefits of the physical manna with the eternal benefits of life in the Spirit. This theme is repeated throughout the Word of God. All through the Bible, the limited and temporary benefits of the flesh are contrasted with the infinite and eternal benefits of the spirit. Consuming manna, even manna from heaven, has limited value. However, receiving Christ's life, by placing our trust and hope in Him, has infinite value. Romans chapter 8 explains this truth:

"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. …For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. …So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His (Romans 8:1, 5, 6, 8, 9)."

In addition to Jesus' teaching in John chapter 6, we get additional insight into His message by reading John's entire Gospel, and we begin to fully understand what Jesus meant when He said "I am the bread of life." In John's Gospel, Jesus makes seven "I am" statements. These seven are listed below.

John 6:35 I am the bread of life
John 8:12 I am the light of the world
John 10:9 I am the door
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd
John 11:25 I am the resurrection and the life
John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life
John 15:5 I am the vine

Believers should love these seven "I am" statements. Not only is Jesus claiming to be God, but He is defining who God is. Back in the Book of Exodus, Moses asks God what His name is. God responds to Moses by saying, "My name is I AM". God is the self-existent One. This I AM in the Hebrew is the name of God, the YHWH where we get "Yahweh" and "Jehovah."

And in John's Gospel, Jesus expounds and explains who God is. If your soul is hungering, Jesus would say: I am the bread of life. If you're seeking illumination and understanding, Jesus would say: I am the light of the world. Are you looking for the entrance into abundant life? Jesus would say: I am the door. Do you need guidance and protection? Jesus would say: I am the good shepherd. Are you seeking eternal life? Jesus would say: I am the resurrection and the life. Jesus knows your needs better than you do. Whatever your need, Jesus would say: I am the way, the truth, and the life. I am the vine. If you abide in Me, I will supply all your needs.

What Jesus is saying in John chapter 6 and throughout the Gospel of John is: I am all you need. I created you and I know and understand what you need to be fully satisfied and it is Me. Jesus is our all in all. No matter what we think we need, Jesus, alone can supply our true need. By studying the entire Gospel of John, we see clearly that Jesus is not proclaiming Himself to be literal bread, any more than He is proclaiming Himself to be a literal vine or gate. Rather, He is affirming that as our God and Creator, He, and He alone, is all we need. Understanding the whole counsel of God is crucial.

Before leaving chapter 6 of John's Gospel, we must realize that this chapter does not deal directly with the Last Supper, or with the doctrine of the Eucharist. That's worth repeating, John chapter 6 has nothing to do with the Last Supper! And while proponents of transubstantiation often refer to these verses to support their doctrine, nowhere in this chapter does Jesus give the disciples instruction on how to celebrate Communion, nor is the Last Supper described here.

John deals with the Last Supper starting in chapter 13, but chapter 6 is a separate subject. So even if Jesus meant that we need to literally eat the meat of His body to obtain eternal life, He does not ordain a procedure to follow concerning the Communion meal, and He certainly does not tell His disciples to institute a priesthood that will consecrate bread and turn it into His literal flesh. Nor does He teach here, or anywhere in Scripture, to worship His body and blood under the appearance of bread. The Gospel accounts do record Jesus' words at the Last Supper, so let's investigate them.

In the thirteenth chapter of John's Gospel, the events of the Last Supper are given. In verses 2 and 4 we read - "And supper being ended…[Jesus] rose from supper and laid aside His garments, took a towel and girded Himself." So we see that by this time in John's account, the Last Supper was complete, which means that Jesus had already blessed the bread, broke it and said "This is My body which is given for you." (Luke 22:19).

What is interesting in John's account of the Last Supper, is that after Jesus blessed the bread and said "This is My body," He referred to the blessed and consecrated bread as mere bread (in verse 18 and verse 26). Verse 26 states: "Jesus answered, 'It is he whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.' And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon." Did Jesus lose track of what He was doing? Did He misspeak? No! According to Jesus' own words, the bread remained bread even after being blessed.

Matthew 26:17-29, Mark 14:12-25, and Luke 22:7-23 give parallel accounts of what took place on the night before Jesus was crucified. In Luke 22:15-19 Jesus said to His disciples -

"With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

What is notable is what Jesus didn't say. Never did He say that the blessed bread became His literal body, blood, soul, and divinity. This is worth repeating - never in any of the Gospel narratives, or for that matter, nowhere in the entire Bible does Jesus teach that the blessed bread changes into His literal body, blood, soul and divinity. What He does say is - "do this in remembrance of Me." For we know that on the very next day, Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried. He then ascended to the Father.

We are told in Mark 16:19 that "[Jesus] was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." Jesus ascended bodily to be at the right hand of the Father. Peter says it this way: "[Jesus] has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God." (1 Peter 3:22). Jesus' one and only body is in heaven. This makes sense when we remember that He said "do this in remembrance of Me." If Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity is with us in the Eucharist, the words "do this in remembrance of Me" would make no sense. A memorial service is not held for someone who is in attendance, but rather for someone who has departed.

Now, of course, Jesus is God and "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (John 4:24). Jesus is with us spiritually and He is omnipresent (present everywhere), so He is with all of us right now - wherever we may be. But His body is in heaven. "After He [Jesus] had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Hebrews 10:12-14). It is clear that Jesus' body is in heaven and we are to remember what He did for us on the cross by celebrating Communion.

The early church celebrated Communion frequently and their actions are recorded in the Book of Acts. Let's look at how the apostles and disciples celebrated Communion after Jesus' ascension. In the Book of Acts we read:

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and in prayers (Acts 2:42).

So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness (Acts 2:46).

And when he [Paul] had said these things, he took bread and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all; and when he had broken it he began to eat. Then they were all encouraged, and also took food themselves (Acts 27:35, 36).

The Lord's apostles, the very same ones that were present at the Last Supper, broke bread daily, celebrating Communion, and not once did they refer to the bread as the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. Even on Sunday, which is the day that the Lord rose, they referred to Communion as mere bread. In a key verse in the Book of Acts, we read: "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread…" (Acts 20:7).

Notice that the disciples broke bread on Sunday in remembrance of Jesus' death and resurrection. Search as we might, there is no hint in the entire Book of Acts that the disciples considered the Communion service as anything but a memorial service. This does not lessen its importance, rather it emphasizes that the reason for the Communion celebration is to remember the completed work of the cross and that Jesus is now in heaven as our triumphant King!

What is interesting in the Book of Acts is the repeated, emphatic statement made by the disciples that God does not dwell in temples! "However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands…" (Acts 7:48).

[Paul said] Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything (Acts 17:22-25).

This truth is also echoed in the Book of Hebrews: "For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands…but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." (Hebrews 9:24).

Amazing! The Eucharistic Tabernacle is a "holy place" made with human hands! Yet, the Bible states that Christ is not there but in heaven. In addition, the Greek word for "temple" is "naos", which can also be translated as "shrine" or a place of worship. God says He doesn't dwell there, yet the Catholic Church insists that Jesus is present in all the tabernacles of the world. The communion host is made with men's hands, yet, the Bible states that God is NOT worshipped with men's hands (Acts 17:25). The Scriptures clearly teach us that Jesus' body is in heaven and that Communion is meant as a memorial of the finished work of the cross.

Furthermore, the apostles also commanded believers to abstain from blood. In the Book of Acts, we find that the apostles and elders came together to consider certain Jewish customs that had crept into the early church. Their decision, stated by James, is as follows:

"Therefore, I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood (Acts 15:19, 20)."

If the original apostles and disciples repeatedly commanded new believers to abstain from blood (see also Acts 15:29; 21:25), why does the Roman Catholic Church encourage followers to eat Jesus' body and blood? If the consecrated communion host becomes Jesus literal body, BLOOD, soul, and divinity, then partaking in Communion goes against the Holy Spirit's command to abstain from blood. This is a direct contradiction.

Some proponents of the Eucharist argue that 1 Corinthians 11 supports transubstantiation. They refer to verse 29 that states - "For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." A thorough read of 1 Corinthians 11, reveals that the Corinthians were not making the proper distinction between Communion and common meals. Not discerning the Lord's body meant not discerning in the bread and wine the symbols of Christ's body and blood, but partaking of them irreverently, as if it were a common feast.

It is evident that this was the leading offense of the Corinthians. Those who were eating and drinking in an unworthy manner, were getting drunk and selfishly eating before others in the body of Christ. Paul states this as the problem in verses 20 and 21. There is no indication in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians that Paul believed in or taught transubstantiation.

What is very provocative, in verses 26 and 28 of chapter 11, is that Paul refers to the blessed bread as mere bread after it had been blessed. Paul states in verse 26 - "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes."

Additionally, if Jesus is really physically present in the Eucharist, why would Paul state that we are to celebrate the Lord's Supper "till He comes"? This would only make sense if the Lord's Supper is in memory of the finished work of Calvary. And that is exactly what Jesus ordained when He said "do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke 22:19). Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Of course, Jesus did not become a literal lamb when He died for the sins of the world, anymore than a wafer turns into the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus during Communion.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this Catholic doctrine is that Christ is being re-sacrificed daily by thousands of Catholic priests. And that by receiving the Eucharist a Catholic can obtain forgiveness of sins. In other words, the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is a sacrificial offering able to atone for sins. Therefore, Christ is ever suffering and dying each time a priest consecrates the wafer. Here is how the Catechism explains it:

"As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God."

Every time this mystery is celebrated, "the work of our redemption is carried on."

"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it "re-presents" (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross."

This teaching directly contradicts the Word of God. When Jesus died on the cross He proclaimed - "It is finished!" (John 19:30). The Greek word used is "tetelestai". It was a Greek accounting term that meant paid in full. The work for our salvation is complete! Christ purchased our redemption once and for all on the cross. Jesus is not being perpetually sacrificed in the Eucharist as the Catholic Church teaches. Partaking in the Eucharist does not appease God, nor does it atone for sin. If you are a Catholic, then the following verses can be transforming and revolutionary if you will simply take God at His Word.

"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another - He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation (Hebrews 9:24-28).

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. …there is no longer an offering for sin (Hebrews 10:11-14, 18)."

"For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God (Romans 6:10)."

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18)."

Clearly, the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist is contrary to God's Word. It is therefore rebellion to partake in the Catholic Mass. Worse, it is an abomination to worship and adore a piece a bread. This directly violates the second commandment (Exodus 20:4, 5).

If transubstantiation is true, then Jesus' body must be in hundreds of thousands of tabernacles simultaneously. Yet, the Word of God states unequivocally that Jesus has only one body: "and that He [Jesus] might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross…" (Ephesians 2:16), and "a body you have prepared for Me [Jesus]." (Hebrews 10:5).

Finally, at the risk of being redundant, it must be pointed out that nowhere in the Bible does the Holy Spirit teach that the blessed bread becomes the literal body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Proponents of transubstantiation cannot show a single, clear, biblical teaching to support their doctrine.
One final quote, taken from "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" recounts how Mrs. Prest of Cornwall was accused of denying transubstantiation. Her final words to the Catholic bishop prior to being burned at the stake are very illuminating.

"Can you deny your creed which says that Christ doth perpetually sit at the right hand of His Father, both body and soul, until He comes again; or whether He be there in heaven our Advocate, and to make prayer for us unto God His Father? If He be so, He is not here on earth in a piece of bread. If He be not here, and if He do not dwell in temples made with hands, but in heaven, what! Shall we seek Him here? If He did not offer His body once for all, why make you a new offering? If with one offering He made all perfect, why do you with a false offering make all imperfect? If He be to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, why do you worship a piece of bread? If He be eaten and drunken in faith and truth, if His flesh is not profitable to be among us, why do you say you make His flesh and blood, and say it is profitable for body and soul? Alas! I am a poor woman, but rather than to do as you do, I would live no longer."

Happt Easter everyone.

AAAAAHHHGG, HAPPY EASTER!

Thank you Heather!!

HE IS RISEN! HE LIVES! HE REIGNS!

Hisman, JLM, Bethany,

"do this in remembrance of Me."

Also brought up was the way in which the Passover meal was not a "memorial", per se, but was a making-present of the Passover celebrated in Egypt. In the same way, Catholics believe the Eucharist at the altar is not a "memorial" or representation (what most non-Catholic Christians believe) but rather the making-present of the new Passover meal, the body and blood of the true Lamb, re-presented as though we were there receiving it when it was first instituted. Jesus inserted himself into the Passover ritual, and stopped things after that third cup. While he was in Gethsemane, he prayed that the cup might pass him by: perhaps the "cup of wrath" or perhaps the fourth cup of the passover (the cup of restoration).

http://thecrossreference.blogspot.com/2008/03/scripture-passover-and-eucharist.html

"This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all your generations shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the LORD, as a perpetual institution." Exodus 12:14

HisMan: Happy Easter!
Christ is Risen! Truly He is Risen!

Jesus is not the perishable manna that their descendants ate in the wilderness, He is the eternal bread of life that lives forever. Only by partaking in His everlasting life can we hope to live with Him forever. This contrast strengthens His main message, which is recorded in verse 47 where Jesus says, "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life." Notice, Jesus said that as soon as we believe in Him we have, present tense, eternal life. It is not something we aim at or hope we might attain in the future, but rather, something we receive immediately upon believing.

When Jesus said these words, He was in the synagogue in Capernaum (verse 59), and He had neither bread nor wine. Therefore Jesus was either commanding cannibalism or He was speaking figuratively. If He was speaking literally, then He would be directly contradicting God the Father: "you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (Genesis 9:4). Therefore, because Jesus Himself said, "the Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35), He must be speaking metaphorically. And that is exactly how He explains His own words in the subsequent verses.

This part of your quote "He is the eternal bread of life that lives forever. Only by partaking in His everlasting life can we hope to live with Him forever." exactly sums up the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Holy Eucharist. However, consuming Christ's body and blood is NOT cannibalism. In the sacrament of the Eurcharist, Christ's body and blood are truly present, but NOT with their physical properties: it's normal condition is hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. The apostle's didn't bite of pieces of Christ's leg or swallow quantities of his blood. Instead in each piece of consecrated bread they received Christ whole and entire, that is his body blood and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine.
Jesus prepared his followers for the Eucharist in many ways throughout his time on Earth. The multiplication of loaves and fish as you've stated is but one example.

Your interpretation of John 6:35 "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger; whoever believes in me will never thirst." This does not mean that if we believe in Him, he will nourish us spiritually. We don't "eat" and "drink" Jesus by coming to and believing in Him.
Jesus did not stop at verse 35 as you have pointed out. The bread of life talk has two parts: The first verses 22-47 Jesus does emphasize the necessity of believing in Him. The second verses 48-59, Jesus tells us EXACTLY what he means by calling himself "bread". I note you skipped over verse 51 which states: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give (note future tense)for the life of the world is my flesh" In this verse Jesus equates the flesh we must eat for the eternal life with the flesh offered on the cross. Either they are both literal or both figurative. We know Christ offered his real flesh on the cross, therefore Christ wants us to eat his real flesh for our salvation.
If we believe the first part of his teaching then we should also believe the second part of his teaching.

The verses John6:60-70 do not mean that Jesus was speaking symbolically in the above mentioned verses. Why? For the following reasons:

1. The Eucharist discourse ends with verse 58. Verses 60-70 occur later and deal with faith.

2. The word spirt is never used in the Bible to mean symbolic. Spiritual is as real as material.

3. Verse 63:"It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." In this statement Jesus is comparing natural(carnal) man with the faith-filled (spiritual) man. 1 Cor. 2:14-34 provides an explanation of what Jesus means by "the flesh"

4. Jesus says "my flesh" and not "the flesh" when He refers to the Eurcharist. Instead "the flesh" is used when referring to carnal man. Christians do not believe that Jesus' flesh was of no avail.

5. The disciples who did not believe Jesus left after verse 63. If Jesus had assured them He was speaking symbolically, they would NOT have left at this point. This is the only time in the New Testament that any of Jesus' disciples abandon him because they find His teaching too hard to accept.

If transubstantiation is true, then Jesus' body must be in hundreds of thousands of tabernacles simultaneously. Yet, the Word of God states unequivocally that Jesus has only one body: "and that He [Jesus] might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross…" (Ephesians 2:16), and "a body you have prepared for Me [Jesus]." (Hebrews 10:5).

Why is it so hard to believe that "Jesus' body must be in hundreds of thousands of tabernacles simultaneously"? It is mysterious but not impossible for God. Just because we cannot understand how God does something does not mean that we must doubt it! How can we understand the Trinity for example? 3 distinct persons in only one God?!! How can God create something out of nothing? A mystery of faith is something that is a revealed truth but not completely understood. Once again, if Jesus could multiply the loaves and fish to feed thousands how can he not then multiply his body too?

I've only answered a few of your questions HisMan.

You may also want to consider the evidence from Eucharist miracles. Throughout the centuries God has performed many miracles to confirm his Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. These included hosts that have levitated, bled and turned to flesh. Therese Neumann who died in 1962 lived for 36 years without any food or water other than Holy Communion. After receiving Holy Communion, she was able to do farm work and house work!
One other miracle of interest is that which occurred in 700 AD. A priest in the monastery of Lanciano had serious doubts about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One day at Mass, as he finished saying the words of consecration, the Host became a circle of flesh and the wine, blood. In 1971, Pope Paul VI encouraged a thorough scientific investigation. Scientists determined that the flesh was real human flesh from a human heart. The blood was real blood, Type AB. Although the flesh and blood have been exposed for over 1200 years, they are undamaged and have not deteriorated in any way.

It's Easter, take a break and thank Jesus for dying for you.

HisMan, there is a fundamental problem with your argument - and that is that the Eucharist is not the physical flesh and blood of Christ. It is the spiritual flesh and blood of Christ.

Your entire argument - all of the pages and pages and pages of it - is based upon a false idea of what the Eucharist is. You are arguing as if the Eucharist is a piece of physical flesh and a cup of physical blood. But it is neither; it is spiritually Christ's body and blood, not physically. Otherwise, as you said, we would be cannibals, we would be killing Christ at every Mass, and all of your other arguments would apply. Fortunately, none of them apply.

You also seem to have ignored my quoted verses. You provide verses to suggest that the Eucharist is 'mere bread', while ignoring the verses which state otherwise. "This cup of blessing which we bless", wrote Paul. Mere bread and mere wine, you say? You explain away Paul saying that a man must "examine himself" before taking part in the Eucharist by claiming that Paul meant that you shouldn't gorge yourself on the bread or get drunk on the wine. That's because you ignore the verses which suggest that it's more than mere bread and wine.

This practice of ignoring verses that you don't like seems to be an unfortunate habit among "Bible believers" such as yourself.

Didn't I tell you that I found that term to be insulting? Yet you insist upon using it. On top of that, you have called my faith an "abomination". I have been as polite with you as possible. Unfortunately, our friendly conversation ends now. Know that it was your choice to bring about this interdenominational conflict on Easter Sunday of all days. How shameful.

Let me tell you something. The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Without the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have a Bible to misinterpret. Catholic Christians have believed in the Eucharist for over 1,900 years. That is simply historical fact. I provided you with quotes from 2nd century saints as evidence to prove this. I can provide you with many, many more if you like. Here are two quotes from St. Ignatius of Antioch, from the 1st century:

"My Love has been crucified and there burns in me no passion for material things. I take no delight in corruptible food or in the dainties of this life. What I want is God's bread, which is the flesh of Christ, who came from David's line; and for drink I want his blood: and immortal love feast indeed!"

"Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of His Blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as thee is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow slaves."

There is indeed "one body" of Christ, and that one body is the Church. If you're right about the Eucharist, then Christianity was corrupted to the "abomination" of Catholicism mere decades after the events of the Gospels, while many of the Apostles were still alive. Somehow I doubt that that is your argument.

After the Schism, Orthodox Christians also believed in transubstantiation and the Eucharist. It was only with the Protestant Reformation, nearly 1,500 years after the events of the Gospels, that Christians decided to disbelieve in the Eucharist.

Martin Luther and his contemporaries saw the corruption in the Catholic Church. And they were right; the Church was full of corruption. However, where Luther and company went wrong was when they decided that Christians had a lot of their theology wrong for the past 1,500 years. The problem wasn't the theology, but the corrupt bishops and priests. It is the outrageous argument of "Bible believers" such as yourself that Christianity was an "abomination" for over a thousand years, only to be restored to how it was originally supposed to be... by some guy who simply read the Bible. Wow, you got us. We Catholics are just so stupid, after all, we were solely responsible for keeping and making copies of the Bible for a thousand years, yet we failed to blot out and erase all of those verses which, according to you, prove that our faith is an "abomination". We must be the biggest bunch of braindead idiots ever!

On top of that, you guys make the brilliant claim that the Bible is open to individual interpretation. As if that makes any sense whatsoever. How can the Bible possibly be open to individual interpretation if only ONE interpretation is the right one? After all, we Catholics use a different interpretation, and you call our interpretation an "abomination". Yet others should be free to interpret it as they see it, or, as you say, how the Holy Spirit directs them? So what do you do if Jim says "The Holy Spirit is telling me this" and Bob says "The Holy Spirit is telling me that"? What do you do then? Which one of them is right?

I think it's important to point out that Martin Luther himself believed the Catholic theology about the Blessed Virgin Mary. Typically when I bring this up to a "Bible believer" like yourself, I am told that Martin Luther was wrong about Mary. Well, then, perhaps Martin Luther was wrong about a lot of things. First and foremost being that it was necessary to splinter the Church into countless shards rather than put an end to the corruption.

Patricia said: "It's Easter, take a break and thank Jesus for dying for you."

Amen to that.

John,

WOW! Where have you been????? We could sure use your insights on the neverending thread...Please?????

MK!

Happy Easter! :D

Ohhhh...you too Rae..

By the way, not only doesn't the confirmation sponsor need to be from your parish, they don't even have to attend the ceremony...you can use a proxy!

Just thought I'd throw that in.

@MK: Did you get my email? I had to use my university email because my internet has decided it hates hotmail.

Yes...but I have to wait til tonight to answer it...kay? walkin' out the door now to do Easter Dinner at Moms!

YOU GO, JOHN !!!!!!!

John, you rock!
Happy Easter!

The belief that Jesus is the son of God. Not much else.

John:

Excuse me....the Holy Spirit and NOT the Catholic Church, not any church for that matter wrote the Bible.

In any event...Happy Easter to you as well.

@Rae (sixth comment, way at the top)

sorry you couldn't see my sarcasm. I don't see the point of this thread and blog entry being in a pro-life blog, unless only to cause division.

We Christian pro-lifers are guilty of too often thinking we are the only ones that stand for life, and I'm downright ashamed of it.

Think bigger. Being pro-life is bigger than this religion or that. Being pro-life is something that does not necessarily demand faith, but only knowledge, logic, and a heart to love.

Greg, I love that!

John:

I have been praying about your words and responses. Believe me, my purpose is to find the truth and obey it, not to argue with anyone on this site. My questions and statemnets are not meant to be insulting so I ask for your forgiveness in advance.

Not one of the books of the Bible were written by a "Catholic". Every single book of the Bible was written by a Jew, no? In the case of the New Testament, each of the Jewish writers believed in Yeshua as Messiah, no? So what's the point is stating that Catholics compliled the Bible, weren't these just not Christians or believers or followers of Christ.

One other thing that came to mind and it is a question I think you did not answer is this: If the bread and wine are spiritually transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the word of a Jesus ordained priest (your words, I think), what happens if that priest is practicing sin, i.e., engaging in homosexual behavior or molesting children, etc.? This question was not answered and I would really like to know your answer.

If you say that God overlooks the faults of the priest why is a priest even necessary? If God does not overlook the faults of the priest and the bread and wine are not turned into Christ's body and blood because of the priest's "uncleanliness", what happens to the parishoners that thought they were partaking of Christ's body and blood for its salvific benefits? Aren't Catholic believers then placing a huge amount of trust in human effort/behavior/integrity/actions/lifestyle in their faith walk and not in the person of Christ where is should properly be?

If you say that the liturgy of the mass, i.e., the words spoken by the priest cleanses him prior to the consecration of the bread and wine, if the priest is habitually engaging in sin, does not this make a mockery of God's grace, for does not Hebrews 10 say, "26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God"?

HisMan: "the Holy Spirit and NOT the Catholic Church, not any church for that matter wrote the Bible."

John said the Catholic Church COMPILED the Bible, not wrote it The Catholic Church recognizes it is the Word of God.

John, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the purpose of setting the NT canon to discern which books were inpsired by the Holy Spirt to ensure only inspired texts were being read at Mass?

HisMan, from the Catholic Catechism:
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

Hisman,
I am no John L, that is for sure, and I will look forward to his response, but this is what I found in the Catholic Catechism about "unclean" priests:

1584 Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting.76 St. Augustine states this forcefully:

As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christ's gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains dear and reaches the fertile earth. . . . The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.77

Wow, John, heavyweight apologist for the faith!

Ellie is correct, HisMan. The idea that the efficacy of the sacraments was dependent on the holiness of the priest is a heresy known as Donatism. This was condemned in the early church. So as long as the priest follows the form (this is my body, this is my blood) and has the correct matter (wheat bread), the consecration is valid. You called to attention in your above paragraph many of the problems that would arise if the sacrament DID depend on the holiness of the priest.

I believe it was St Francis of Assisi who was told about an extremely scandalous priest. St Francis' response was that he would go up to that priest and receive the Eucharist from his holy hands. OK, so I tell the story really crappy, but the point is that St. Francis knew that even though this priest was fornicating (I think) the Eucharist is still the Eucharist.

@Greg: My apologies for misunderstanding. :) Sarcasm is a touch difficult to understand on the internet.

"We Christian pro-lifers are guilty of too often thinking we are the only ones that stand for life, and I'm downright ashamed of it.

Think bigger. Being pro-life is bigger than this religion or that. Being pro-life is something that does not necessarily demand faith, but only knowledge, logic, and a heart to love."

I agree whole heartedly. ^_^

Hi Rae!

"Look, I am an engineer. I am trained to think logically."

Wow, I'm a mathematician... that makes us like, what, academic cousins maybe?

"Now, having said that I agree with the bulk of Catholic Theology where it agrees with Scripture. Fortunately most of the agreement is in the important stuff and I have learned much from my Catholic brtheren. I don't think there is another church in the world that does the amount of good that the Catholic Church does where it involves the poor and needy and teh unborn. In fact, I would say that I agree more with Catholic Theology than I do with Lutheran, Presbyterian, and most main line Protestant Theologies."

I gotta say, I have a very deep respect for this, and I appreciate it very much. This really shows a selfless attitude and humility. I could only be so blessed to have this kind of attitude when describing those with whom I disagree with. God love you.

Bobby, you have a great attitude with those (like me) with whom you disagree.

You're an example to us all.

There are many, many, many liturgical abuses that go on in our church today...Everything from dancing in church to not reading scripture (I was actually at funeral mass where the first two readings were by Kahlil Gibran and Mother Teresa...absolutely FORBIDDEN!)

We are suffering much from the 70's, the priests it produced, and Vatican II (which perverted the actual message that was meant), but there are only three things that would make a mass invalid. (there is a difference between illicit and invalid...invalid would mean the the Host and wine were not actually changed to His body and blood).

Those would be if 1. If the priest did not believe in the true presence.
2. If anything other than bread made with only wheat and water, or anything other than wine was used.
3. If the words of the consecration were changed...even slightly.

It's pretty hard to invalidate a mass. A scandalous priest will be punished SEVERELY for his behavior (see purgatory), but as Bobby said before, the church herself should not be punished for the priest indiscretions...

Actually, the person who is in most danger of going to hell is the pope. His responsibility is so huge, and every slip, every sin, affects so many people. I wouldn't want his job for anything. He needs our prayers. As do all the priests.

Bobby:

I took more Calculus classes than I care to remember and vector analysis and differential equations, statistics, probability theory, etc., etc. I even taught my professor how to solve a differential equation with multiple unknowns in an unconventional way because I didn't understand the textbook way. He then used that method to obtain some sort of accreditation for our engineering school. Oh well. I had nighmares well past graduation that I still had math classes to complete. I then learned how to apply mathematics to design spacecraft, aircraft, do structural and mechanical analysis, etc. Somewhere out it space there's a plaque with mine and about 100 other mathematicians, scientists and engineers attached to the Galileo spacecraft. I designed the pointing system for that spacecraft. So yes we are mathematical as well as theological bros. One thing I know is that Theology is more interesting to me now than mathematics and I think both prove God's existence, His infinite nature, and utter genius.

John:

Why then is the priest, good or bad, necessary at all? Why can't I just have communion in my home?

Is taking communion neceessary for salvation?

Ellie:

Please read my entire commnent. I asked John what his point was in stating that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. And did these people, when they compiled the Bible call themselves Catholic or Christian? Again, what's the point?

Finally, I'd like to say this. I think there is more that unites us than divides us. It is apparent that we all love Christ for what He did for us and is doing. It will be awesome to spend eternity with you guys when all our questions will be answered. I know that our understanding is skewed by our prejudices, our experiences, our mental capacity, etc., and for that I ask God to give me grace. I don't pretend to know everything, I am just trying to honestly seek Him and His will for my life. Up to this point, my search has me in disagreement with some Catholic doctrine. This is not to say that I won't change or that you won't change. Perhaps we can leave a legacy to the future church that eliminates or minimizes the divide. I actually hate the term Potestant. I understand the term Catholic, however, why can't we all call ourselves Christian?

I think ultimately, we will be measured on how we treat our brethren. If we can't love each other despite our different understandings, the love of God is not in us and here is where Paul's command to "examine oursleves", becomes relevant. In teh context of the Corinthia love feast, the Christians in attendance were treating each otther very poorly. I don't know about you but I don't want anyone mistreating my bride.

In a sense, blogging on this site is way for me to examine myself and test what's inside against what others think and understand to be truth. I even try to understand Hal, although, I have a difficult time with that since he can't even seem to come to a realization that there is a god, some god, some higher power. However, I haven't walked in his shoes, lived his life, had his challenges, etc. Besides, I don't think we win anyone to Christ by fighting them.

Thanks for bearing with my long posts, however, this gives me a way to categorize my thoughts, have them tested, be challenged and hopefully learn. I'm glad you Catholics are there defending your faith because it shows a depth of conviction that is so lacking in the world today. While most of my Christian friends are awesome God-lovers I ever get discouraged by their actions sometimes, and I am sure they by mine. This is why a tender heart and forgiving spirit are so vital in maintaining one's faith. Again, examining oneself in light of Christ's sacrifice does this. Perhaps we are not so far apart on the most significant part of the Eucharist and that is, the recognition of the Presence of Christ be it in the bread and wine symbols or in our hearts.

So, Happy Easter to all. Yes, indeed He is Risen and for that we can all be hopeful of a great and glorius future.

Hi HisMan,
Peace to you on this holy Easter.

I appreciate all your questions and concerns, really. When one follows the "yellow brick road" of these questions, one will eventually find Truth.

Perhaps a copy of the Catechism will help answer the myriad of questions that you have. You're not the first to "go there".
And Happy Easter to all my blog buddies, prolife and prochoice alike! I've missed you!!

MK wrote: "Those would be if 1. If the priest did not believe in the true presence.
2. If anything other than bread made with only wheat and water, or anything other than wine was used.
3. If the words of the consecration were changed...even slightly."

You're absolutely correct MK. In fact, I have not attended a specific parish because I feel that the priest does not believe in the Real Presence.

Hisman,

I'm sure John will do a better job answering this, but when Jesus instituted the priesthood, He designated these men to lead the church. To understand this, we must first explain what we mean by a sacrament.

We believe that baptism is causes a profound, mystical change in us. It is not caused by us believing. It it a gift given to us, through the Holy Spirit. It is where we are changed on the inside, and now permanent members of the Body of Christ. This is why we can do it to infants. It requires nothing of the person. It is a gift. When a person is older, they must consent of course, and it could appearas though it is their consent that saves them, but it isn't. It is the baptism itself.

We have seven sacraments. Baptism, where we receive the Holy Spirit and enter the communion of believers.

Confession, where we receive graces, sanctifying graces as opposed to how you understand grace. Again, a mystical gift, that gives us spiritual strength and helps on our journey to become holy. It's not just about telling some guy what we did wrong. We receive these beautiful graces, and our spiritual life, our souls, become more Christlike.

Confirmation, where we enter more fully into the church (I think this is more like what Bethany and JLM think their baptism is.) It is done to young adults (normally, although people entering the church for the first time will also make their confirmation). This is when we confirm our faith, and the Holy Spirit will give us our "gift"...again, it is a mystical experience. NOT a magical one. But a mystical one. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Marriage, where a couple ceases to be two persons, but instead their flesh becomes one, and they are no longer two individuals but one person...much like the idea of the trinity. This is why Catholics don't allow divorce. Marriage is not a contract, but a covenant...And we understand how seriously God takes covenants. We cannot "unjoin" what God has joined. Much like you believe that once you have been saved, you cannot be unsaved, we believe that once you are married, short of death, you cannot be unmarried. Again, graces are received, when partaking of this sacrament.

Anointing of the sick is done when a person is near death, or gravely ill. It is done not as healing of the physical body, but rather, as a healing of the soul. It is meant to put a person right with God...to prepare the person to meet God, and hopefully to give them an opportunity to make a good confession, thereby foregoing any temporal punishments (skipping purgatory) and going straight to heaven). This does not happen because of anything that the dying person does, but through the graces he receives upon receiving this sacrament.

Holy Orders is done only to m