03 Thursday Aug 2017
Posted in Faith
The Second Vatican Council is a subject of much debate in the Church of today. Many Catholics embrace the “reforms” of the Council, while others staunchly appose it. Many Novus Ordo attendees embrace it, as their form of the Mass sprang from the aftermath of Vatican II. Some groups like the Sedevacantists condemn the Council as man-made error. Which one is true? Is the truth set in between these positions, or is one correct and the other wrong? Thoughts?
20 Thursday Jul 2017
Posted in Faith
The Early Christian writing show us what Christianity believed from the time of the Apostles on through the centuries. Many of the First Christians were disciples of the Apostles and also their successors. Their writings show us Christian thinking of the first centuries, and how Christ’s teaching was understood. Who better to express the Apostles’ teaching than their own students? They certainly believed that Peter held a place of primacy among the Apostles.
Tatian the Syrian
“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
The Clementine Homilies
“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is 
made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
“There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another” (ibid., 66[69]:8).
Firmilian
“But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).
“[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (ibid., 74[75]:17).
Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the
Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Sechnall of Ireland
“Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).
Pope Leo I
“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).
Council of Chalcedon
“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).
Both history and the Scriptures point to Peter being made the leader of the earthly Church. Why object to it? Scripture teaches it; the first Christians believed it. A person who makes an attack on the papacy is either ignorant or wrongly informed. I would next like to study the one of the specifics of the teaching power of the pope, that is, infallibility.
{To be continued in The Origins of the Authority of the Pope (Part 3) Papal Infallibility}
11 Tuesday Jul 2017
Tags
The Catholic Magisterium is the power of the Catholic Church, as given it by the Son of God, Christ Jesus, to proclaim the truths of the Faith. The Magisterium exercises this teaching power in two different ways.
The Solemn Magisterium
This form of the teaching Magisterium is that which is used by popes to formally define articles of the faith infallibly. When the pope teaches this way, it is referred to as ex cathedra.
The Ordinary Magisterium
This form of the teaching Magisterium is exercised by the Church in practices connected to faith and morals, in the common sense of the faithful, historical documents, unanimous consent of Church Fathers and theologians, when the faith is taught.
The Apostles were the Church’s first teaching authority after Jesus, the first of the Magisterium. Christ granted them 
the power to teach the faith to Christians and non-Christians alike. To Peter Christ said:
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)
Here Christ appoints Peter as the rock He will build His Church upon, promising that Satan’s power will not destroy it. Christ then gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, a significant act showing Peter’s power of authority.
Some will object and say that the original Greek of the Gospel lists Peter as Petros, meaning smaller rock; a stone, while the word for the rock Christ will build His church upon is petra, meaning large rock; a boulder. If Peter’s name meant “small rock”, then he could not be the foundation that Christ was speaking of. Instead, Christ must have been referring to Himself when speaking of the foundation of His Church.
First, I am no Greek scholar myself, but have been told that in Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament, petra and petros are synonyms of each other. They simply 
translate as “rock”. The only form of Greek that they could not be used interchangeably is Attic Greek, as it is a form of Greek in which petros and petra have different meanings.
Also, if Christ wished to express Peter’s inability to be His Church’s foundation, He could have referred to him as lithos, which means a small pebble in Greek. It was not as if Christ’s vocabulary was handicapped, or that He was trying to be deceptive or tricky. He said what He meant.
In addition to the Greek of the Gospel, the meaning of Peter as the rock is bolstered in the language of Aramaic, the language Christ spoke. In Aramaic, the words for Peter and rock would be the same; kepha. Christ would have used kepha for both the words Peter and rock in the passage. This helps make clear the reality of what Christ was conferring on Peter; He was making him His Church’s foundation.
The concept of the keys of the kingdom is interesting. In Scripture, keys were regarded as a symbol of the authority granted to a person. Christ giving the keys to Peter is not unlike an instance in the book of Isaiah. Isaiah gives His servant Eliacim the keys to the house of David, the kingdom of David that is, saying words similar to Christ’s.
“And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.” (Isaiah 22:22)
The power given both to Eliacim and Peter held great authority. Being given the keys to the kingdom, they both were able to make binding decisions no one could alter. Christ even tells Peter that the decisions he makes conducting His Church shall be ratified in Heaven. Can anyone top that? God ratifying your decisions? This was no small honor for Peter. It was a great responsibility. He was the rock on which Christ chose to build His Church.
In Luke 22:31-32, Christ tells Peter:
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
Here, Christ tells Peter of Satan’s desire to break up and destroy the Apostles, but Christ says He has prevented it through prayer. He then places Peter in charge of confirming, strengthening, the other Apostles. Peter is placed in charge of helping the other Apostles continue in the way of truth, and not allow them to be taken by the devil. This is one of several examples of the primacy and individual authority Peter possessed among the Apostles.
Another blatant example of Peter’s authority is in John 21:15-17. While Peter is on a beach, eating with Christ, they have the following dialogue:
“When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”
Here, Christ places Peter in charge of His own flock, the Church. Peter is to be the head of Christ’s Church on earth, teaching Christ’s flock. Christ gives Peter His entire flock to take care of, making him a shepherd of His Church. Could the Scriptures be anymore plain as to reveal that Christ commissioned Peter to take charge of the Church after He ascended to Heaven? The early Christians are even plainer.
{To be continued in The Origins of the Teaching Authority of the Pope (Part 2) }
04 Tuesday Jul 2017
Posted in Faith
One Blogger on WordPress, Spaniardviii, decided to attack me yesterday, insinuating that I’m a plagiarist. Spaniard made this assumption solely on the basis that I’m 15 years old. That’s it. I guess a teenager cannot:
1. Write articles on religion without stealing other’s work without giving credit.
2. Know enough about religion to be a competent debater.
On another blogger’s site (page link at bottom) Spaniard made the assumption:
“By knowing that you are 15 tells me even more about you that you rely heavily on Catholic theologians. Everything that you have said to be is not from you but is by those that you rely heavily on. The information that you are spewing clearly cannot come from a 15 years old kid but comes from whatever Catholic sites or sources you go to. I’m really refuting in a sense those sites not you.”
Clearly cannot come from a 15 year old kid? Age does not make one wise Spaniard. I only claim to have better knowledge of the Christian religion than you because I believe your beliefs are incorrect. That’s just my opinion. If you truly knew so much about the Bible, why would you be outside the Catholic Church?
“You should have been honest and just said that you read someone’s material that you agreed with. There’s nothing wrong with that but you made me and other people believe that it was yours. For an example, my 15 years old son was asserting that he knew something because he was convinced by a YouTube video.”
Should have been honest? I was unaware of any dishonesty. I never have gone and “reworded” someone else’s work. I quote other’s work, and note it in footnotes. You do not know me; do not insult my knowledge. Don’t judge me against your teen son.
I am a Catholic Apologist. I do not steal other’s work. If I quote someone’s work, I give them credit. If I want to share someone else’s work, I re-blog it. You do not know me; you haven’t met me. You cannot judge my knowledge of Christianity. You cannot make the assumption that I’m a plagiarist solely on my age. You want a piece of advice from this Catholic Thinker? Be kinder. Lighten up.
Comments link: https://modconspiracy.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/a-call-to-answer/
03 Monday Jul 2017
Posted in Catholic Tradition, Early Church, Faith, Heresies
Originally posted on The Catholic Thinker: https://whysoseriousdotcom.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/who-is-your-teacher-scripture-alone/
To anyone who adheres to Sola Scriptura, they have gotten it right…The Bible is the sole authority when it comes to Christian doctrine…
The above phrase was taken from the article: Who Is Your Teacher? — by Modconspiracy (Link at bottom).
Is the Bible really the sole authority? Does the Bible teach that it is the sole authority? Was this always believed by Christianity? Is Scripture the only infallible teacher?
Well first, how did the Bible come together?
The Bible is a collection of writings considered to be inspired by God, written by man. The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein. A canon distinguishes what is revealed and divine from what is not revealed and human. The Council of Laodicea, 360 AD, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon. Around 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a canon of books he thought were divinely inspired. Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon, the same canon listed by Athanasius. The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree. Later Councils of Hippo, 393 AD, and Carthage, 397 AD, ratified this canon listed by Pope Damasus. In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming the canon, which contained 73 books.
This is roughly how the Bible came to be. The Catholic Church was the one, who, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, determined what books belonged in the canon, and which did not.
The New Testament is a collection of letters written by the first Christians, primarily the Apostles, to the churches in their care, or their students in the Faith. The Gospels are a written account of what occurred in Christ’s life. These events were previously taught orally, before they were written. We are both lucky and thankful that Christ’s Apostles decided to write down His teachings, as Christ never commanded them to write any of it on paper.
Catholics believe that the Bible is the written form of God’s Word, and it is inerrant. Along with Sacred Tradition, it is a source of Revelation to man. Tradition is all the Christian teachings that are not found in the Bible, but are still doctrinal truths. These two sources of Revelation are interpreted and taught infallibly by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, the Pope.
This is where the Protestant churches disagree. They believe that the Bible alone is the sole authority of Christian doctrine, and it alone is the infallible teacher. This doctrine is commonly referred to by its Latin name of Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone.
Is Sola Scriptura true? Does it have any biblical or historical roots? For Sola Scriptura to work, it would have to be found in the Bible. The most commonly cited verse by Protestants when attempting to prove Sola Scriptura is:
“All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
This verse does not say that Scripture is sufficient; it says that Scripture is profitable. It does not say that we are to go by the Bible alone. Also, read in context with the preceding verses, St. Paul is talking to Timothy about the scriptures that he has known from his infancy (2 Timothy 3:15). The only scriptures at that time was the Old Testament. Paul’s epistles were not regarded as Scripture at the time of its writing. If this is proof of Sola Scriptura, then in reality it is Sola Old Testament! The real message of this passage is that all scripture is profitable, but not sufficient.
The Greek word pasa, which is usually translated as “all”, means “every”, in the sense of referring to each and every individual piece of the class denoted. That is to say that the Greek literally reads that each and every individual scripture is profitable. Profitable, not sufficient. If profitable is to be taken as sufficient, then that means that every individual book of Scripture is sufficient to teach all Christian doctrine, and that is utter nonsense.
This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and the Church. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). And to use an analogy, examine a similar passage:
“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11-15).
If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then Ephesians 4 would also prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. The pastors, teachers, etc. are able to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, building Christ’s Church, and unity in knowledge of the Faith. Using the Protestant mindset for 2 Timothy 3:16, it appears that the leaders of the Church are sufficient, since this passage doesn’t even mention Scripture. So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. Another passage that could be mentioned such as James 1:4.
“And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.” (James 1:4)
It appears that, using the Protestant mentality applied to 2 Timothy 3:16, patience is enough to perfect a man, and only patience. James makes no mention of Scripture being sufficient.
Or perhaps 2 Corinthians 12:9 which states:
“And He has said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness‘ Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.” (2 Corinthians 12:9)
Maybe even Matthew 19:21.
Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” (Matthew 19:21)
Nowhere does the Bible claim to be the sole teacher of Christian doctrine, implicitly or explicitly. Why should one believe Sola Scriptura if the Bible itself does not teach it?
One cannot argue that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of the Early Church either–they didn’t have a Bible for several centuries. The early Christians relied on oral Tradition to learn about God and Christian doctrine. Tradition, like the Bible, is the Word of God.
“Word” in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, in Jeremiah:
“For twenty-three years…the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again…’But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord…Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words…’ ” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8).
This was the Word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:
“When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.” (1 Thess. 2:13)
The Scriptures are not the only form of the Word of God. The word of God is oral Tradition also, as shown above. Before Paul wrote down the Word of God, it was oral–but it was still the Word of God.
Many Protestants quote verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:8-13; Col. 2:8). They seem to think that since Jesus condemned man-made traditions that nullify the Word of God, then all tradition is to be regarded as bad. The Bible says otherwise.
Let us remember that Jesus Christ commissioned the Apostles to “preach the Gospel to every creature”(Mark 16:15), not to “write down everything that I have taught you in one big book.” The Apostles oral teaching was to be believed, as it was binding (Luke 10:16). The prophet Isaiah prophesied of how the Word of the Lord would not depart from his people’s mouths; and would remain with them forever (Is. 59:21) This shows how important Tradition really is; not only the Bible holds the authoritative Christian teaching. This oral teaching will last forever, says Simon Peter.
“But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.” (1 Peter 1:25)
Be aware of the word preached–it was oral. This was guaranteed to last. Just because the Word was not written down does not mean that it wasn’t the Word of God. How did the Bible come to be?? Did several typewritten papers fall from Heaven one day? No. God inspired men to preach and later write down His Word. The oral Word holds the same authority as that which is written.
“And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” (Acts 2:42)
The first Christians persevered in the doctrine of the apostles, not solely on the Bible. Why did these Christians not persevere in Scripture alone? Because, they acknowledged the Apostles as their teachers, and also because the only part of the Bible in existence was the Old Testament. The New Testament was not written at this particular time, so this does not help the Protestant argument.
“Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.” (1 Cor. 11:2)
These “ordinances” that Paul has delivered to the Corinthians is tradition; something that is to be upheld, according to the Apostle. Why should the Christians have kept Paul’s ordinances? Should they have said that they didn’t see his ordinances in the Bible? Oh right, there was no Bible at that time.
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” (2 Thes. 2:14)
St. Paul commands the holding of oral and written Tradition–not Scripture alone. He says to observe the tradition that has been learned by word, oral tradition, or written, scripture.
“What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.” (2 Tim.1:13-14)
Paul tells Timothy to keep the sound teaching he has heard from him–oral Tradition.
“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.”(2 Timothy 2:2, emphasis added)
Paul tells Timothy to entrust to “reliable people” the teaching he has heard him say. This teaching that Timothy has heard is oral teaching–Tradition. Tradition is taught to be held as binding by the Church’s believer’s; not only Scripture. St. Paul approves of Apostolic Tradition, apart from the harmful traditions of men.
Tradition is of the same authority as the Bible. Why? Because it too, along with the Bible is God’s Word. They are just two different sources of Revelation in different forms. Before the Gospels were put on paper, they were oral Tradition. In reality, the New Testament is Tradition on paper. Why argue that Scripture alone is authoritative when Scripture says otherwise?
Did Paul not teach Christians to follow the Tradition given them? The Tradition he gave was authoritative. It would be very foolish to ignore the importance of Tradition. St. Paul knew that what he was teaching was infallible, or else he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:
“If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.” (2 Thes. 3:14)
“Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17)
Why should someone adhere to Sola Scriptura when Scripture does not teach that it alone is authoritative? The Bible clearly says that both Tradition and itself are rules of authority. Protestants defending Sola Scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, as we witness Christ’s showdown with Satan in the beginning of Luke 4, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:
In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament.
In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement.
“As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
Why should these references be believed by those that were being spoken to, if they were not written in Scripture? In 1 Corinthians 10, shouldn’t the Christians have rebuked Paul for going beyond Scripture and teach them from Tradition? No, because they were never taught to go by Scripture alone. None of the first Christians or Jews followed the rule of Sola Scriptura. The Jews listened to the prophets and other teachers God set before them, instead of going by Scripture Alone.
To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:
In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chr. 17:8-9).
Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (Ezra 7:26).
So the people did indeed understand the law (Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without teaching assistance. The Old Testament teaches the need for authoritative interpreters, just like the New Testament.
The Bible, like any book, cannot interpret itself. There must be a truthful, teaching authority. There are people who do not understand the Scriptures and twist them to their own destruction. St. Peter mentions this in his second epistle, when speaking of St. Paul’s writings.
“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)
Someone with reasonable biblical knowledge must teach the meaning of the scriptures to others. Someone must show others the meaning of the sacred writings, so they may understand. Who better to do this than the Catholic Church, the institution that put the Bible together?
“And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaiah the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.” (Acts 8:28-31)
People must be shown the meaning of the Scriptures that they may know their meaning, and that they may not twist them to their own destruction. How can a person of no religious training be able to correctly decide the true meanings of Scripture passages? There are many seemingly contradictory passages in the Scriptures.
Matthew 23:9: “And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.”
Romans 4:12: “And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”
So did Paul sin by calling a man on earth his father?
John 13:34: “A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”
Luke 14:26: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
We have to hate our parents to follow Christ? Or are we to love one another? Which one?
With so many passages that are difficult to understand, there must be a teacher. Even the Twelve Apostles did not understand some of Christ’s parables, and needed them explained (Mark 4:33-34). The prophesies in Scripture are not to be privately interpreted (2 Pet. 1:20), lest people twist their meanings (2 Peter 3:16).
Here we see the Bible itself stating in no uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation. St. Peter is obviously contrasting genuine, Apostolic teaching with false prophets and false teachers, and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point between the two. The clear implication is that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.
Who can correctly teach the Bible’s meaning?
The Bible itself refers to the Church as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The truth of the faith has been revealed primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who with Jesus Christ, are the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, which keeps it’s teaching from corruption forever (John 14:16).
It is evident from the above passages that the teaching Church should be infallible, or else it would not be the pillar and ground of truth. If the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, then it is unable to teach erroneously on Christian doctrine. The only plausible conclusion is that Our Lord was very deliberate in establishing His Church and that He was referring to its infallibility when He called it the “pillar and ground of truth”.
Beginning with Peter, the Apostles received authority from Jesus Christ Himself.
“Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)
“If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17)
It is clear that God gave authority to his Apostles. The judicial power of binding and loosing is not just an everyday accomplishment! With their authority evident, why would one teach that Scripture alone is the sole authority? If the Church is the pillar of truth, how can the Bible be the only infallible authority? The notion of Sola Scriptura diminishes the authority of the Church, and leaves the ground of truth inferior to the Bible.
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity” (Acts 15:28-29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around “through the cities,” and Scripture says that “they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
Why did the Apostles make a decision on something not clearly taught in Scripture? Why did the Early Christians not object to this? Because the Apostles were appointed as teaching authorities by Christ. They did not adhere to, and were not bound by Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura underemphasizes the fact that the Bible came from the Church, the Church did not come from the Bible. The Church got along quite nicely in the world without having a Bible for a few hundred years. If Sola Scriptura was true, how did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture? They didn’t go by Scripture Alone. There was no Bible for quite some time. The canon of Scripture was not settled till the 4th century. Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament’s canon was identified? And if there was a final authority before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible’s canon was established? The whole position is utterly illogical. The notion of Sola Scriptura, like the ancient Jews, was alien. They held Tradition and Scripture in the same regard as the Catholic Church. Epiphanius of Salamis summarizes the Catholic position quite neatly:
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition.” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375])
The Bible itself would not be in existence if not for the Catholic Church. How else would it have come together? The Catholic Church determined what books belonged in the Bible canon. The Bible did not drop out of Heaven with an inspired table of contents. How would one determine, from Scripture alone, what books belong in the Scriptures? How would one determine, from Scripture alone, who wrote what books of the Bible? The manuscripts did not begin titled “The Gospel according to Luke”, or Paul’s Epistle to the Romans”. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church, using Sacred Tradition, determined the canon of Scripture, and knew who wrote the books. Those conclusions could not be gotten from solely the Bible, especially if no one knew what was inspired Scripture.
Essential to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Holy Spirit will enlighten each believer as to the correct interpretation for a given Bible passage. This idea presupposes that each believer possesses a Bible or at least has access to a Bible. The difficulty with such a presumption is that the Bible was not able to be mass-produced and readily available to individual believers until the advent of the printing press in the 15th century. Even then, it would have taken quite some time for large numbers of Bibles to be printed and disseminated to the general population. How could Christians possibly have access to an authoritative source prior to this time? Did Christ leave His people in the dark about Christian doctrine after he ascended to Heaven? How would they know?
Christians did not need a Bible to know God’s Word, as they had His Word in the oral form of Tradition, and were taught by His Church, the Pillar of Truth. Really, if Jesus intended for Christianity to strictly be a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?
And, if Sola Scriptura were true, wouldn’t all Christians who adhere to the doctrine be in agreement on Christian teaching? There are thousands of “Christian” denominations, all teaching different doctrines. Are they all correct? Some denominations teach that once you are “saved” you can never lose your salvation, while others believe it is possible for a true Christian to sin gravely and cease being “saved.” Some teach the need for infant baptism, others condemn it. Who’s right? Shouldn’t they be on the same page since the rely solely on Scripture?
If every person gives his own private interpretation on a passage, how does he know if he is correct or not? Are any individual Protestant interpreters infallible? Many will answer no. In that case, you really don’t know what is the truth, do you? What a sad position.
With all the above problems stated, it is evident that Sola Scriptura is just another unbiblical (how ironic), man-made tradition. The only God-given institution that is infallible and error-free is the Catholic Church, as founded by Christ Himself. Christ’s Church teaches that Sola Scriptura is a heretical, man-made tradition that leads one away from the Truth, not closer to it.
The Catholic Church, using her Magisterium, infallibly teaches Christian doctrine, using the sources of Revelation; the written form of God’s Word, the Bible, and the oral form, passed down from generation to generation, Sacred Tradition. This alone is how Christ intended his flock to be taught. Only by accepting the Catholic Church as possessing the complete rule of faith can one be certain that they possess the whole truth Christ taught. Delving into the traditions and religions of men will not bring you truth; it will lead you astray.
— Patrick E. Devens
03 Monday Jul 2017
Posted in Faith
By Jimmy Akin, February 26, 2016: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/war-and-capital-punishment
In the midst of last year’s debate in the United States over abortion and Communion, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a confidential memorandum entitled Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles. It was leaked to the press, and its genuineness was confirmed by the Holy See. Catholics who wanted to see Catholic pro-abortion politicians held accountable for their reprehensible stance found much of what Ratzinger said heartening, but one statement in the memorandum caused some of them considerable perplexity:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
This statement was a response to those who argue that if Communion should be withheld from politicians who dissent from the Church’s teaching on abortion, it then also should be withheld from politicians who disagree with John Paul II’s statements regarding the use of capital punishment or who approve of wars (such as the Iraq War) that the pontiff appears to oppose. Individuals on the other side of this debate maintain that, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, war and the death penalty are incommensurate with abortion.
As John Paul II pointed out in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, direct abortion is intrinsically evil and can never be justified under any circumstances (cf. EV 62). This means that it is not left to the prudential judgment of individuals whether to have or perform a direct abortion. It is always wrong, and to support this action is to put oneself at odds with the teaching of the Church.
But there are situations where war and the death penalty are moral (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2309, 2267). It is left to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for such matters to determine whether the conditions in a particular case warrant their use. Consequently, to disagree with the Pope on these issues is to disagree with his prudential judgment, not with Church doctrine.
Even though in his position the pope is not charged with decisions about waging war or executing criminals, deference is certainly due to his prudential judgment. But to disagree with his prudential judgment in a particular case does not amount to dissent from Church teaching and does not trigger the provisions of canon law (e.g., CIC 915) that would result in Communion being withheld.
This much is indicated in what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote. But he went further by referring to “a legitimate diversity of opinion” regarding war and capital punishment. What is the basis for this statement? And how far does this legitimate diversity go?
State Decides, Church Advises
The reason there can be a diversity of opinion on the decision to go to war is that the application of the Church’s just-war criteria is left to the prudential judgment of those responsible for the decision: the leaders of the state rather than the Church. Though the pontiff can counsel political leaders on such decisions, it is beyond his mandate to make such decisions, and his opinions in this area do not decisively govern the state’s actions.
Further, the evaluation of some of the conditions of the Church’s just-war doctrine relies on intelligence and military knowledge that the Church does not possess. Spies know more about hostile nations and what attacks they may be about to launch than does the Church. Similarly, generals know more about what can be achieved on the battlefield and at what cost.
But what about a disagreement with the pope on the level of policy regarding war?
Here there is a factor that limits legitimate diversity of opinion: The Church has a set of conditions that it proposes must be met in order for a decision to wage war to be just. Though the application of these criteria is a matter of prudential judgment, the criteria themselves are not. They have been proposed—since the time of Augustine, who is credited with originating them—as matters of moral doctrine.
Thus far there has been no definitive formulation of these criteria. The Catechism offers one formulation (see sidebar), but the Catechism is not infallible, so one can disagree with the way the conditions are formulated in the Catechism.
Nor is the Catechism an exhaustive, technical survey of Catholic teaching. In keeping with the nature of a catechism, it teaches in summary fashion and leaves things out. Some have noted that the Catechism’s formulation of the just-war conditions does not include all of the considerations that the Church has brought to bear on this question.
Nevertheless, the conditions enumerated in the Catechism represent an important formulation of the Church’s just-war doctrine, which is theologically certain, though not definitively phrased. As a result, a fundamental disagreement with these criteria would amount to dissent from Catholic doctrine.
A politician might quibble with the Catechism’s phrasing of the circumstances or urge something from historical Catholic just-war teaching that the Catechism omits. He might feel that the conditions for a just war are met more frequently than churchmen generally suppose. But to go beyond this and to disagree fundamentally with the criteria would be to go beyond legitimate diversity of opinion and into dissent.
Judges and Juries Decide
As with war, legitimate diversity of opinion on capital punishment is founded on prudential judgment. The Church acknowledges that the state has the right to execute criminals in certain circumstances (cf. CCC 2266). Whether or not those circumstances are met in a particular case belongs to the competence of the judicial system and not to the Church. Judges and juries are the ones who must apply their prudential judgment to the facts of a particular case.
But if there is a legitimate diversity of opinion on particular cases, does this extend to the level of policy? Why does Cardinal Ratzinger indicate that one could disagree with the highly restrictive policy proposed by John Paul II regarding the use of the death penalty?
One possible reason is that the Church does not have conditions for the imposition of the death penalty that have been articulated in comparable detail, precision, and force to those of its just-war doctrine. There are circumstances that one could propose as established principles of Catholic doctrine on this topic: The person to be executed must be guilty of an offense, his guilt must be morally certain (i.e., proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”), and his offense must be sufficiently grave to be proportionate to the loss of his own life.
If one disagreed with these points, then one would be going beyond legitimate diversity of opinion. But those who disagree with John Paul II on capital punishment typically do not disagree with these principles.
What is always important, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith pointed out in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, is “the willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the magisterium” (IEVT 24).
The document goes on to say that “when it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every.aspect or the entire complexity of a question” (ibid.).
Weighing What We Know
Applying this to recent statements about the death penalty, we find the following:
1. The circumstances in which the death penalty should be applied have been discussed in two highly authoritative documents: an encyclical and the Catechism. In neither case was the death penalty the principal topic of the work in question but something only briefly dealt with. If, by contrast, a whole encyclical had been devoted to the topic, then much greater weight would be added to the discussion.
2. These discussions have not been repeated with great frequency in highly authoritative documents. Most mentions of the topic have been in documents of much lesser weight (e.g., papal telegrams, Vatican press statements), and many of these merely urged clemency in particular cases and did not offer sustained discussion of the criteria that must be met for capital punishment to be legitimate.
3. The manner of phrasing in the two major statements is tentative. If one looks at the language used in regarding the death penalty and compares it to the words used regarding abortion, the difference is stark. On abortion the pontiff is thunderous: “By the authority that Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors, in communion with the bishops . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being” (EV 62). If he had added “and define” after “I declare,” this would have been a new infallible definition.
But on capital punishment the Holy Father appeals only to changes in societal attitudes and the penal system and concludes that cases where capital punishment is required “are very rare if not practically non-existent” (EV 56). His juxtaposition of two possibilities indicates a tentativeness regarding how frequent such cases are.
The material offered regarding the death penalty also is phrased in an incomplete manner. His discussion of the topic is only a little more than 300 words long in English. The Pope advances several propositions but does not elaborate them with supporting arguments and answers to objections, nor does he appeal to his papal authority to settle the matter. He also refrains from mentioning, much less repudiating, several considerations from traditional Catholic thought that might be brought to bear on the matter. (See Avery Cardinal Dulles’s comments in the sidebar, at right.)
The Catechism has little to say on the subject and largely quotes Evangelium Vitae.
4. Most fundamentally, the matter we are dealing with is a prudential one involving “contingent and conjectural elements,” such as the most effective way to deter crime and prompt the repentance of criminals. The Pope appeals to changes in the prison system, the severity and efficacy of which vary from country to country. Even then he acknowledges that there are cases where the death penalty can be warranted. Neither “very rare” nor “practically non-existent” means “non-existent,” and the question of whether one is facing such a case is inescapably prudential.
In view of these considerations, it is easier to understand why Cardinal Ratzinger would state that there is a “legitimate diversity of opinion” among Catholics regarding war and capital punishment. Good Catholics should not make the mistake of thinking there is not.
26 Monday Jun 2017
Posted in Faith
Perfection is, broadly speaking, a state of completeness and flawlessness. If people were perfect, they would be incapable of performing a task in a mediocre, sub-par fashion. Whatever act they may perform would be done with the utmost skill, sufficiency, and grace. To put it plainly, those who could be perfect would have, in a way, one of the perfections of God.
Judging from what God has revealed to his creation humanity, through the written form of His Word, the Bible, for a human to enter Heaven, he must be perfect. This what God created humanity for; perfection. God is constantly reminding us with this teaching, and always exhorting His people to be perfect.
(Matthew 5:48) “Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.”
St. Paul even says that without holiness, “no man shall see God.” (Hebrews 12:14)
Jesus does not say the sinful, but rather “the…
View original post 4,738 more words
25 Sunday Jun 2017
Posted in Faith
Why do Catholics confess their sins to a priest? The priest is just another sinner, is he not? Why not just confess our sins directly to God?
This is the usual set of questions that Protestants ask when regarding the Catholic sacrament of Confession. They are reasonable questions, questions that I hope to answer in this article.
The sacrament of Confession is an ancient sacrament of the Catholic Church, dating back to its institution by Christ. In the early Church, public sins, like apostasy, were confessed publicly, in front of the congregation of Christians. Privately committed sins were confessed privately to a priest.
The writings of the first Christians shed some light on Confession:
The Didache
“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure…” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
Ignatius of Antioch
“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ…” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).
Hippolytus
“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power that comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command…” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” (The Lapsed , 28 (A.D. 251]).
John Chrysostom
“Priests have received a power that God has given to neither angels nor archangels. It was said to them: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose shall be loosed.” Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding, but they can bind only the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond that pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? “Whose sins you shall forgive,” he says, “they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
Jerome
“If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11 [A.D. 388]).
The Early Christians believed that God gave His priests the power to forgive sins. They believed that a person must confess their sins to the priest in order to be forgiven. This is the same doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church teaches today.
What exactly does the Catholic Church teach on Confession?
First, the Church teaches that God alone can forgive sin. However, God chooses the way He wishes to forgive sin; using a priest. Even in the Old Testament God used His priests to forgive sin.
“If a man lies carnally with a woman… they shall not be put to death… But he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord… And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin which he has committed; and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven him.” (Leviticus 19:20-22)
God used a priest to administer forgiveness, and this did not take away from God’s power to forgive. He merely forgave the sinner through His priest. Just as God used His priests to forgive sin in the Old Testament, He does the same in the New Testament.
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’” (John 20:21-23)
Having been raised from the dead, our Lord was here commissioning his apostles to carry on with his work just before he was to ascend to heaven. “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” What did the Father send Jesus to do? All Christians agree he sent Christ to be the one true mediator between God and men. As such, Christ was to infallibly proclaim the Gospel (cf. Luke 4:16-21), reign supreme as King of kings and Lord of lords (cf. Rev. 19:16); and especially, he was to redeem the world through the forgiveness of sins (cf. I Peter 2:21-25, Mark 2:5-10). (1)
One instance of God using a man to forgive sin is in 2 Corinthians 2:10. Paul speaks:
“And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.”
St. Paul made use of his power to forgive sins in Christ’s name, despite being a sinner himself. Just because a man is a sinner does not negate the fact that he has God given power. St. Peter was a sinful man, and yet he was able to preach and baptize people in Christ’s name. How is the power to forgive sin any different?
It should also be noted that the Apostles were given spiritual authority by Christ in Matthew 18:18:
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This authority was passed down by the Apostles to their successors, from bishop to bishop, from bishop to priest. It is the Catholic Church who can trace her lineage all the way back to the Apostles, as the power to forgive sins are passed down to the Church’s priests. This is why Catholics confess their sins to their priest; their priest received the same power over sins as the Apostles.
As the Apostles were men who were given power to forgive sin, how would they have known what sins to forgive? The only way for them to know would be that the penitent tell them their sins. That is why Catholic confess their sins to a priest. Priests are (often) not mind readers. How else would they know what to “bind and loose”?
Many Christians claim to be “Bible-believing”. If they do not confess their sins as God wanted them to, are they truly Bible-believing?
— Patrick E. Devens
(1) https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-confession-in-scripture
20 Tuesday Jun 2017
Posted in Anti Catholic, Faith
Tags
Anti-Catholic Bias, Catholic Apologetics, Music, The Eucharist, The Pope, The Rosary, The Saints
Original article: https://whysoseriousdotcom.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/its-great-to-be-catholic-response-to-excatholic4christ/
Tom, aka excatholic4christ, wrote an article a few months ago titled: 10 Really “Uncool” Things About Being Catholic (link at bottom of page). Tom, in his spirit of anti-Catholic bias and ignorance of true Christianity, labeled several of these 10 things unbiblical and all of them “uncool”. I want to take a look at each accusation.
1. Confession.
Tom says: “Going into a dark box and confessing sins to a priest is unscriptural. No man can forgive sins. The Catholic confessional box was often used by predatory priests to initially lure their victims. Priests were required to probe older children and young adults with embarrassing questions about sexuality to ensure they gave a full, ‘good’ confession.”
First, all priests were required to ask embarrassing questions? Required? I think not. Prove it. Yes, there have been repulsive, perverted men that have entered the priesthood of Jesus Christ who have been sexually immoral. But this is a small percentage that cannot be perceived as the whole.
The sacrament of Confession is an ancient practice dating back to the Apostles. The Early Church testifies for the practice of Confession. See here:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/confession
Furthermore, just as God used His priests to forgive sin in the Old Testament, He does the same in the New Testament.
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’” (John 20:21-23)
Having been raised from the dead, our Lord was here commissioning his apostles to carry on with his work just before he was to ascend to heaven. “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” What did the Father send Jesus to do? All Christians agree he sent Christ to be the one true mediator between God and men. As such, Christ was to 
infallibly proclaim the Gospel (cf. Luke 4:16-21), reign supreme as King of kings and Lord of lords (cf. Rev. 19:16); and especially, he was to redeem the world through the forgiveness of sins (cf. I Peter 2:21-25, Mark 2:5-10).
One instance of God using a man to forgive sin is in 2 Corinthians 2:10. Paul speaks:
“And to whom you have pardoned anything, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.”
St. Paul made use of his power to forgive sins in Christ’s name, despite being a sinner himself. Just because a man is a sinner does not negate the fact that he has God given power. St. Peter was a sinful man, and yet he was able to preach and baptize people in Christ’s name. How is the power to forgive sin any different?
It should also be noted that the Apostles were given spiritual authority by Christ in Matthew 18:18:
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This authority was passed down by the Apostles to their successors, from bishop to bishop, from bishop to priest. It is the Catholic Church who can trace her lineage all the way back to the Apostles, as the power to forgive sins are passed down to the Church’s priests. This is why Catholics confess their sins to their priest; their priest received the same power over sins as the Apostles.
As the Apostles were men who were given power to forgive sin, how would they have known what sins to forgive? The only way for them to know would be that the penitent tell them their sins. That is why Catholic confess their sins to a priest. Priests are (often) not mind readers. How else would they know what to “bind and loose”?
It seems very clear that Confession is very biblical.
2. The Rosary
Tom says: “God’s Word forbids prayer to any entity other than to Him. It also forbids multiple rote prayers.”
The verb “to pray” means “to ask”. It originally held this meaning in old English, and was used in phrases such as “I pray thee, do tell…”. It is originally just another word phrase for “ask”. The usage began to change meaning during the Protestant Revolt. The head of the Church of England did not warm up to the practice of prayer to the saints, and the term became solely associated with prayer to God. As the English monarchy took over many churches and universities of England, this Protestant word usage became the norm among non-Catholics. Catholics however, did not take to the new meaning, and from then till now “prayer to the saints” has strictly meant asking for saintly intercession.
This explanation shows that not all prayer is worship, as it depends on the manner of such, and the definitional term used.
Secondly, the bible exhorts Christians to constantly pray for one another, and it does not restrict the Christians of Heaven to do so.
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God” (Romans 15:30)
“By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints: And for me, that speech may be given me, that I may open my mouth with confidence, to make known the mystery of the gospel.” (Ephesians 6:18-19)
“You helping withal in prayer for us: that for this gift obtained for us, by the means of many persons, thanks may be given by many in our behalf.” (2 Corinthians 1:11)
And perhaps the most explicit passage on intercession for one another:
“I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the
sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:1-4)
Asking the saints in Heaven to pray and intercede for us to God is the same exact concept as asking other Christians on earth to pray for us.
As for repetitive prayer, the Bible nowhere condemns such. In Matthew 6:7, Jesus said “do not heap up ‘empty phrases’ (Gr. – battalagesete, which means to stammer, babble, prate, or to repeat the same things over and over mindlessly) as the Gentiles do…” We have to remember that the main idea of prayer and sacrifice among the pagans was to appease the gods so that you could go on with your own life. You had to be careful to “take care of” all of the gods by mentioning them, and saying all the right words, lest you bring a curse upon yourself.
Later in Matthew 6, Jesus gave us a prayer to recite! The Our Father! Notice the emphasis on living the words of the prayer! This is a prayer to be recited, but they are neither “empty phrases” nor “vain repetitions.”
Mark 14:32-39:
“And they went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, ‘Sit here, while I pray.’ And the took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. And he said to them, ‘My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch.’ And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, ‘Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; remove this chalice from me; yet not what I will, but what you will.’ And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, ‘Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptiation; the spirit indeed is weilling, but the flesh is weak.’ And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. And again, he came and found them sleeping… And he came a third time, and said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping…?’”
Our Lord was here praying for hours and saying “the same words.” Is this “vain repetition?” No. Tom, you do not recognize the difference between repetition and vain repetition.
3. Popes
Tom claims that there are no popes in the Bible. I’m sorry that you are to ignorant to realize that St. Peter was the first pope. Christ appointed him the head of the Church on earth when He gave Him the keys to the kingdom, and reaffirmed this by telling Peter to feed Christ’s sheep. If you cannot see that Christ left His Church in Peter’s hands, then you need to study the concept further.
4. Saints
Tom says: “The New Testament refers to saints as all those who have accepted Christ as Savior, not a super-holy class of people as Rome invented.”
Catholics believe that all who are in the state of sanctifying grace are saints. Catholic merely refer to the saints in Heaven as “saints”, and call the Church Militant on earth “Christians”.
Also, to enter Heaven, one must be holy. St. Paul even says that without holiness, “no man shall see God.” (Hebrews 12:14) Not sure why you say “super-holy” class of people Rome invented. Rome didn’t “invent” holiness as needed for salvation, and Rome did not invent any people. The saints are as real as you and I.
5. Relics
Tom says: “Nowhere in the New Testament are believers instructed to venerate physical objects.”
No Tom, the Scriptures do not explicitly say: Venerate relics. But then again, the Bible is not the sole rule of faith.
“One of the most moving accounts of the veneration of relics is that of the very body of Christ itself. Rather than leaving his body on the cross, to be taken down and disposed of by the Romans (as was the customary practice), Joseph of Arimathea courageously interceded with Pilate for Christ’s body (Mark 15:43, John 19:38). He donated his own, newly hewn tomb as Christ’s resting place (Matt. 27:60). Nicodemus came and donated over a hundred pounds of spices to wrap inside Jesus’ grave clothes (John 19:39), that amount of spices being used only for the most honored dead. And after he was buried, the women went to reverently visit the tomb (Matt. 28:1) and to further anoint Christ’s body with spices even though it had already been sealed inside the tomb (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1). These acts of reverence were more than just the usual courtesy shown to the remains of the dead; they were special respect shown to the body of a most holy man—in this case, the holiest man who has ever lived, for he was God Incarnate.
“Keep in mind what the Church says about relics. It doesn’t say there is some magical power in them. There is nothing in the relic itself, whether a bone of the apostle Peter or water from Lourdes, that has any curative ability. The Church just says that relics may be the occasion of God’s miracles, and in this the Church follows Scripture.
“The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life: “So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet” (2 Kgs. 13:20-21). This is an unequivocal biblical example of a miracle being performed by God through contact with the relics of a saint!
“Similar are the cases of the woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) and the sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16). “And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them” (Acts 19:11-12).
“If these aren’t examples of the use of relics, what are? In the case of Elisha, a Lazarus-like return from the dead was brought about through the prophet’s bones. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures. There is a perfect congruity between present-day Catholic practice and ancient practice. If you reject all Catholic relics today as frauds, you should also reject these biblical accounts as frauds.” (1)
6. Processions
Tom writes: “As priests parade a large bread wafer alleged to be the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus in a sunburst container called a monstrance, the Catholic faithful bow down and worship it. This is unmitigated idolatry.”
Hmmm…last I checked, Christ told us that we are to eat His flesh to have eternal life. He gave us His flesh to eat under the appearance of bread.
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” (John 6:51-52)
“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to 
his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:26-28)
“The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:16)
7. Blessings
Tom says: “Priests and bishops are alleged to have been ordained with the ability to endow people and objects with powerful blessings.”
…is this strange to you at all? Just like the prophets of the Old Testament giving their blessing to others? This charge against blessings seems to be the dumbest yet.
8. Music
Tom says: “Gaudy liturgical ritual with its accompanying music defined “religion” for most older generation Catholics.”
This one seems to be more of an opinion than an actual accusation. Not sure what get’s Tom’s goat about music.
9. Guilt
Tom says: “Yup, God’s Word says we are all sinners, but Catholics can never find spiritual peace in Christ because they’re on a religious treadmill and no matter how much they do or how good they try to be, it will never be enough.”
We are all sinners, and we do not know at the present if we will die in the state of grace. What if I am in the state of grace at one time, and then commit murder? Should I have nothing to worry about? Your argument is nonsense.
10. A Sense of Humor
Tom says: “I went through twelve years of Catholic education and I can attest to the fact that MANY priests, nuns, and brothers did NOT have a sense of humor. Often those troubled souls were cold and hurtful.”
Some people are kind and cheerful, others are not. It is not like all Catholics are hapless zombies. I have been Catholic all 15 years of my life, and the majority of Catholics I have met are fun, happy people. Most of my friends are Catholic. They take their Christianity seriously. You just view everything through an anti-Catholic lens. How about taking those anti-Catholic shades off now and take a long look at Truth?
— Patrick E. Devens
(1) https://www.catholic.com/tract/relics
via 10 Really “Uncool” Things About Being Catholic — excatholic4christ
16 Friday Jun 2017
Posted in Faith, St Luke's Gospel, St Mark's Gospel
The Eucharist, (derived from the Greek noun eucharistia, which means “thanksgiving”) also known as Holy Communion and Holy Viaticum, is defined by the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) as the following:
“The holy Eucharist completes Christian initiation. Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.”
(CCC 1322)
“At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'”
(CCC 1323)
“Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body. We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta) – the first meaning of the phrase “communion of saints” in the Apostles’ Creed – the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality, viaticum…”
(CCC 1331)
As shown in the text above, the Catholic Church teaches that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is present under the appearances of bread and wine. The Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted by Jesus Christ on Holy Thursday, at the Last Supper with his Twelve Apostles. The Eucharist is the most treasured of the Catholic Church’s Seven Sacraments, due to the reality of God Himself being substantially present among us, under the appearances of bread and wine. The name given to how bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ is called transubstantiation.
“By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.” (CCC 1413)
The Catholic Church’s teaching on the Holy Eucharist has a strong biblical basis. In both the Synoptic Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul, the Real Presence is taught and defended.
Also, there is a strong historical basis for the Catholic argument. The doctrine of the Real Presence (the teaching of the Eucharist being truly Christ’s Body and Blood) since its institution at the Last Supper, has been believed by Catholics throughout history even till now. The Early Christians testified of Christ’s true Presence in the Eucharist, and some, mostly those who lived before the Edict of Milan, were brutally murdered for their unwavering beliefs in the Real Presence.
In this paper, we shall look over the texts of the Sacred Scriptures, and also the early writings of the first Christians, in order to defend the Catholic doctrine from attackers.
Who are the attackers? Let’s take a look. Many of the attackers are the common Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants; mostly those who go under the title “Bible Christian”, and yet do not profess a doctrine the Bible clearly teaches. Some of these people who disagree with the Catholic teaching are only doing so out of ignorance, while others have biased anti-Catholic beliefs which are made up of hateful lies, and twisted, misrepresented truths. Here’s a rundown of the common Protestant argument against the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist.
First, the Eucharist is only a symbol of Christ’s Passion and Death on the Cross, nothing more; and Second, Jesus did not change bread and wine into His Body and Blood at the Last Supper, and did not mean for His teaching to be taken literally.
This is the common argument of a Protestant who disbelieves in the Real Presence. Some other hardcore anti-Catholic Fundamentalists go even farther in their accusations against the Real Presence.
For instance, in his comic book The Death Cookie, anti-Catholic publisher Jack Chick accuses the “Holy Papa”, presumably the Pope, of “creating” the belief of the Real Presence of the Eucharist while being influenced by Satan himself. The “wafer” is to be believed by all to be the Body of Christ, or, Chick states, the Catholic Church will murder the every doubter. Chick says that the inscription on a communion host is IHS, which stands for the names of three Egyptian gods; Isis, Horus, and Seb. He caps off his comic book by saying that many rulers and leaders in the world today are held in fear under the power of the Church’s doctrine of the Real Presence. If anyone publicly denies it, the Church leaders will have them silenced by being killed for not worshipping this “idol”. There are many other fanciful histories of the Catholic Church that this bigoted anti-Catholic hate-literature writer has put together. These stories make Catholics look like brainwashed dummies who are idol worshippers. The key to answering accusations such as these is to use common sense and reason, along with a deep understanding of the truths of the Catholic Faith.
The point proven here is that the opponents of the Church recognize the importance of one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passages concerning the Eucharist. Let’s now look at the Catholic Church’s biblical basis for its doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
The Text of John 6
The 6th chapter of the Gospel of John is a key biblical passage in the teaching of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. John 6 begins with Jesus traveling over the sea of Galilee being followed by a great multitude of people, who are pursuing Him because of how He raised the dead to life. (John 6:1-3)
Jesus, seeing the crowd following Him, asks if there is any bread to feed the crowd. The Apostles bring Jesus five barley loaves and two fishes. Jesus then miraculously multiplies the loaves an fishes and has the Apostles distribute them to the crowd. After the crowd is finished, the Apostles collect the remains of the meal, and the food fills twelve baskets.
(John 6:4-13)
Afterwards, the crowd wants to seize Jesus to make Him their king. Jesus flees alone to a nearby mountain, while His Apostles go out onto a boat into the sea. Later, Jesus meets the Apostles on the sea, by walking on the water. After conversing with them, Jesus goes to Capharnaum, and His Apostles soon follow. It is here that the Jews ask Jesus for a sign that they may believe that He is the Christ. (John 6:14-30)
Here, in the second half of John 6, begins the instruction on the Eucharist.
The Bread From Heaven
The Jews tell Jesus that their ancestors ate the manna while in the desert, that is, the bread that came down from Heaven. Could Jesus top that? (John 6:31)
Jesus responds by saying:
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.” (John 6:32-33)
The Jews reply with:
“They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.” (John 6:34)
The Jews want this bread that, according to Jesus, comes down from Heaven. They want to see what Jesus can give them in contrast with the manna that fell from Heaven to their forefathers. They wish to see if Jesus can give them something that will prove to them that He is the Christ.
John 6:35 says:
“And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.”
Notice how Jesus says ” ‘I am’ the bread of Life”. An interesting note is that in the Old Testament, God tells Moses that “I AM” is His name.
“God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.” (Exodus 3:14, emphasis added)
Here Jesus uses the name of God to say that “I AM (GOD IS) the bread of life.”
The Bread is My Flesh
Here is where the Jews think that Jesus has just lost His sanity. Let’s look at what exactly happens. Jesus says:
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” (John 6:51-52, emphasis added)
Woah, Woah, Woah! What’s He saying?! Jesus says that the bread of life that He is to give the world is His flesh! The Jews respond by saying:
“The Jews thereof strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:53)
The Jews are freaked out! Why are they freaked? Because they understand Jesus to be speaking to them literally–and they are correct. They are questioning Jesus because they think He truly means for them to eat the flesh of His body. Now, if Jesus was just talking in parables; metaphorically that is, He would tell the crowd what He means, right? If he only meant to eat His flesh symbolically, He would of made that clear, wouldn’t He? Let’s read on.
Jesus replies to the Jews with these words.
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.” (John 6:54-59, emphasis added)
Those are some pretty powerful words! Jesus didn’t tell them of a symbolic meaning of what He spoke. He didn’t soften up His words; He reinforced them! No one now thought that He was speaking symbolically. He made no attempt to express any “symbolic” meaning; because there was none!
Jesus says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we won’t have life within us! His flesh is meat–indeed! And His blood is drink–indeed! If Jesus only meant that this was all symbolic, then He has really been confusing His followers.
In the text above, Jesus says that if we eat His flesh and drink His blood, He will abide in us and we in Him. This is very important because:
“Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you.” (John 15:4-7, emphasis added)
No Corrections
Christ’s disciples murmur among themselves:
“Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” (John 6: 61, emphasis added)
Jesus’ own disciples are questioning His teaching now! So far, Jesus has made no corrections to their literal understanding. Instead, he goes on even further, saying:
“Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not.” (John 6:62-65)
Here is where the Protestant objections and “corrections” arise. One thing they may say is:
“Hey! He said that it’s the spirit that benefits, and that the flesh is worthless! He couldn’t mean that we are to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood!”
First of all, Jesus said nothing about His flesh not being of profit. If Jesus Christ’s flesh is worthless and has no benefit, then we are all damned. It was Jesus’ flesh that was scourged, buffeted, spit upon, and hung on a tree for our salvation. What is that interpretation supposed to mean? “Eat my flesh, but it won’t help you.” NO! If Christ’s flesh does not profit, then He was born, lived, died, and resurrected for no reason. Jesus’ flesh itself does indeed profit much.
The term “flesh” here is referring to a man’s inclination to judge things by natural human reason. That is, to judge by worldly judgment. Natural human judgment, when unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable and erroneous. This “fleshy” or “carnal” judgment is rebuked in John 8.
“You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man. And if I do judge, my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.” (John 8:15-16,emphasis added)
Here are further explanatory passages for the usage of the term “flesh”.
“For they that are according to the flesh, mind the things that are of the flesh; but they that are according to the spirit, mind the things that are of the spirit.” (Romans 8:5, emphasis added)
“That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit.” (John 3:6, emphasis added)
The term “flesh” when used in the Bible usually means the sinful human inclinations of living life. In the instance of John 6:63, this is the true meaning. The text does not mean that Jesus’ flesh is worthless. On the contrary, it avails much.
After this, Protestants will usually say that since Jesus said “The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life”, then the word “spirit” means “symbolic”. That’s the explanation of this passage! He was just speaking symbolically! Wait…was He?
This Fundamentalist conclusion can only be reached when someone is trying their hardest to evade the Catholic interpretation. The word “spirit” is never used anywhere in the Bible as a synonym for “symbolic”! That is a horrible, lame conclusion! Jesus never 
mentioned the third Person of the Holy Trinity as the “Holy Symbol”. The usage of the term “spirit” here only means that what Christ said can only be understood by faith; apposed to the interpretation according to the flesh. The carnal interpretation is of no avail.
No Room For Symbols
The only conclusion a person can make from the text of John 6 is that Jesus intended us to literally eat and drink His flesh and blood. It couldn’t be more explicit, right? Fundamentalists usually make a few more claims before realizing they don’t add up. Some may say:
“In John 6:35 Jesus said ‘I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.’ That means that eating His flesh is coming to Him, and having faith in Him is drinking His blood.”
There are problems with this interpretation. First, when read in context of the verses that follow, it is clear that Jesus meant for His flesh to be eaten literally. Second, the phrase “to eat the flesh and drink the blood” of a person, when used figuratively among the Jews, meant to inflict upon a person a severe injury. This usually meant to injure someone by calumny or slander. Using a figurative interpretation would mean that Jesus is promising the Jews everlasting life if they slander His name. Doesn’t sound right, does it?
Some Fundamentalists assert that Jesus was speaking symbolically when they cross-reference the discourse of John 6 with other Scripture passages. Jimmy Swaggart for instance, in a column in his magazine, The Evangelist (October 1985), says that Catholics should likewise begin worshipping Jesus as a door (John 10:7-9), and also as a vine (John 15:5), since they believe He was speaking literally about His flesh in John 6.
Well, these analogies have drastic difference with the discussion of John 6. There is no logical comparison with the phrases used by Jesus in John 6 (eating and drinking His flesh and blood) and those of John 10 and 15. In John 10, it is clear that Jesus was not claiming to be a literal door, composed of a slab of wood, knob, hinges, and key hole. In a spiritual sense though, Jesus Christ is like a door; we all go to the Father in Heaven through Him, don’t we (John 14:6)? Jesus is also like a vine since all Christians get their spiritual life, or “sap” through Him. But as for us eating His flesh, there is no symbolic comparison. Jesus Himself did say “the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world”. This cannot be expressed symbolically, and only leaves people like Swaggart scratching their heads.
Language of the Text
There is another problem with the symbolic interpretation of John 6. The Gospel of John was recorded in Greek. Beginning with the text in John 6:54, Jesus uses the Greek word for “eat” which is “trogon“, and translates as “chewing” or “gnawing”. Trogon is used to replace the word Jesus had previously been using for eat, which is “phago“. Phago is a more general, generic term for the word “eat”. By using this graphic term, trogon, Jesus sends the message of the literal eating of His flesh. John reinforces this literal meaning by using trogon four times within John 6; verses 54, 56, 57, and 58. Is Jesus was trying to leave a possible symbolic interpretation of His words on the table, then He would have continued to use the word phago throughout His teaching. But He did not. He chose to use the more graphic term for His literal teaching.
The Loss of Followers
After Jesus finishes His Eucharistic instruction, some of His followers choose to leave Him. It is recorded as:
“After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.” (John 6:67, emphasis added)
After listening to Him, many of Jesus’ followers leave Him! This is the only recorded time when Jesus lost followers due to doctrinal teaching. They obviously found something wrong with His teaching! They understood Jesus to be speaking literally, not symbolically. And, if Jesus was actually only speaking symbolically, then why did He not call the crowd back, and tell them of the true symbolism? Because there were not symbols. Jesus showed that He truly was speaking literally, saying that He intended for His flesh to be actually eaten for the life of the world.
After losing a number of his disciples, Jesus turns to His Apostles next.
“Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” (John 6:68-70)
Peter and the Apostles do not entirely grasp Jesus’ teaching, but they remain because they know that He is the promised Messiah, the Son of God.
In the entire text of the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, there is no symbolic teaching of eating of Christ’s flesh, only a literal understanding.
The Synoptic Gospels
I shall now move on to the accounts of the Last Supper as written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These Gospel passages of the Last Supper are the fulfillment of Christ’ promise in John 6, when He foretold the Eucharist.
The Text of Matthew 26
Matthew 26 opens up with the Jews conspiring against Jesus (Matthew 26:1-5), and is followed by Jesus having His feet anointed at the house of Simon the leper (Matthew 26:6-13). After this, Judas betrays Jesus to the chief priests (Matthew 26:14-16), and the Pasch is prepared for Jesus and His Apostles (Matthew 26:17-25).
After eating the Pasch meal, the following is recorded:
“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:26-28, emphasis added)
Jesus takes bread, blesses it, breaks it, and distributes it to His Apostles. He tells them that it is His body! There is no symbolic language. He does not say “This is a symbol of my body” or “This means my body”. He only says “This is my body”.
The Text of Mark 14
The Last Supper story of Mark 14 is preceded by Jesus ending two of His disciples to prepare a room for the Pasch (Mark 14:12-16). After gathering for the meal, Jesus tells the group that there is a traitor among them; Judas (Mark 14:17-21). The following words are then recorded.
“And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.” (Mark 14:22-24, emphasis added)
The Text of Luke 22
The text of Luke 22 begins about the same as Mark 14. Jesus sends His Apostles to prepare a room for the Pasch (Luke 22:7-14). He then eats the meal with them (Luke 22:15-18). He then institutes the Eucharist, saying:
“And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” (Luke 22:19-20, empahsis added)
In all of the three Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus takes bread, gives thanks (or blessed) for it, and says that it is His body! There is absolutely no symbolism here. He
speaks to them plainly. It is in like manner to the chalice of wine. He said that it is the new testament in His blood. He does not say “These are symbols of by body and blood” or “These represent my body and blood”. He says that they are His body and blood!
The Fruit of the Vine
Protestants try to disprove the reality of the Real Presence by citing the phrase “fruit of the vine” that appears in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, as to say that Jesus understood that the contents of the chalice were mere wine and not His blood. Let’s look at the context of the phrase in Matthew and Mark. Matthew 26:26-30 states the following.
“And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.”
Mark 14:22-26 says:
“And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many. Amen I say to you, that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God. And when they had said an hymn, they went forth to the mount of Olives.”
It appears that Jesus is referring to the chalice of His blood as “fruit of the vine”, and not really His blood. Most Fundamentalists make the mistake of not taking into account the passage in the Gospel of Luke. Unlike Matthew and Mark’s Gospels, Luke’s Gospel places the phrase “fruit of the vine” before the institution of the Eucharist. Let’s take a look at Luke’s recording.
“And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer. For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” (Luke 22:15-20, emphasis added)
It appears that when Jesus uses the phrase “fruit of the vine”, He is not speaking of the chalice of His blood, but rather that of the wine of the Pasch meal. If Jesus is actually referring to the drink of the meal, and not of the Eucharist, then the Fundamentalist reasoning is rendered useless. The point here is that someone cannot enforce the Fundamentalist interpretation with the real uncertainty of the verses meaning.
The Pauline Epistles
Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians
“The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:16, emphasis added)
St. Paul says that chalice that is blessed is in communion of the blood of Christ. The bread which is broken is partaking of the body of the Lord. Notice he doesn’t say they are only mere symbols.
Here is Paul’s account of the Last Supper, and also his instruction on the Eucharist.
“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 giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-30, emphasis added)
Here St. Paul gives a near identical account of the Last Supper as that of the Synoptic Gospels, but he then follows it up with several firm words on the Eucharist. He said that who ever partakes unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord! How can you be guilty of such an offence if the Eucharist is only symbolic? He who eats unworthily eats and drinks judgment unto himself! Harsh words for an apparent “metaphor” or “symbol”! He says this punishment is for those who do not discern the body of the Lord. If the Eucharist is not truly Christ’s body, then what is Paul referencing to? St. Paul obviously taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as he was writing part of the infallible Word of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Third Person of the Blessed Trinity would not allow Paul to commit such an error if meaning to convene the reality of symbolism in the Eucharist. Paul’s words make sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
Paul says that there are many that are infirmed and weak among the Corinthians. This is because when they did not discern the body of the Lord, and received His body unworthily, which contributed to spiritual loss of grace. Paul’s words for the Corinthians are very firm and seemingly un-symbolic. The Fundamentalist “figurative” interpretation is useless here.
The Road to Emmaus
The Text of Luke 24:13-35
In Luke 24:13-35, on the road to Emmaus, the resurrected Jesus appears to some of His disciples, but his identity is unknown or “hidden” from them. He then discusses the scriptures that pertain to Him, and then sits down to table and breaks bread with his disciples. At the moment of Consecration, (the breaking of the bread) the true identity of Jesus is made known to His disciples, and then he disappears! This is the reality of the Real presence today! Jesus is made present in the Eucharist at the moment of Consecration, after the praying the prescribed words that Jesus uttered at the Last Supper. He is truly present at the breaking of the bread!
After examining the biblical evidence of the Eucharist, I am uncertain of how a person can still view the Eucharist as only a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s death.
The Testimony of the Early Christians with Commentary
The Didache, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (70 AD)
“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’.” (Didache 9:5)
St. Ignatius of Antioch (lived 35-108 AD, Disciple of St. John)
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.” (Letter to the Romans 7:3)
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God…They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1)
They abstain from the Eucharist because they do not confess it to be the flesh of Jesus Christ. Sounds a lot like a Fundamentalist Protestant, doesn’t it? Ignatius was writing against heresy that is still alive today, but now goes under the title “Christian”. Let’s look at the others.
St. Justin Martyr (lived 100-165 AD, pagan convert)
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.” (First Apology 66)
St. Justin speaks of the Catholic teaching on the requirements of the Eucharistic recipients. They are required to be baptized for the remission of their sins and has true belief in the Catholic teaching. He takes to heart the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 in order to further protect the disbelievers and those who are ignorant of the Real Presence.
St. Irenaeus of Lyon (lived 130-202 AD, student of St. Polycarp)
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32)
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (Against Heresies, 5:2)
St. Clement of Alexandria (lived 150-215 AD, teacher of Origen)
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children.” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3)
St. Clement does not teach that Jesus was speaking symbolically, nor does he admonish the Christian people for believing literally, but rather teaches the Catholic theological standpoint.
Origen (lived 184-253 AD, student of Clement of Alexandria)
“Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.’ ” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)
St. Cyprian of Carthage (lived 210-258 AD, pagan convert)
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord.” (The Lapsed 15–16)
St. Aphrahat the Persian Sage (lived 280-345 AD)
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink.” (Treatises 12:6)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (lived 313-386 AD, Doctor of the Church)
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ.” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7)
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ…[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so,…partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul.” (Catechetical Lectures, 22:6, 9)
St. Ambrose of Milan (lived 340-397 AD, Archbishop of Milan)
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use!…Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ.” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58)
St. Augustine of Hippo (lived 354-430 AD, Doctor of the Church)
“I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table….That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ.” (Sermons 227)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction.” (Sermons 227, 272)
Council of Nicaea I (325 AD)
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it].” (Canon 18)
Council of Ephesus (431 AD)
“We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the un-bloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving.” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius)
None of the Early Christians believed in a merely symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but rather a substantial presence, the same Catholic teaching of today that has been believed through the ages. If the Church had believed this from its beginning then that means the Fundamentalist interpretation is only a relatively recent half-baked theory. The symbolic interpretation is an addition to the Christian Faith that was ONCE delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), thus a man-made tradition that nullifies the Word of God.
Even Martin Luther, the Father of Protestantism, did not believe that the Eucharist is merely a symbol.
Martin Luther (lived 1483-1546 AD, Protestant Revolutionist)
“If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ?, I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.”
(The Large Catechism of Dr. Martin Luther; On the Sacrament of the Altar)
If the Eucharist was only meant to be a symbol, then it should be evident through the first centuries of Christianity that this was believed, but it is not found. It was all the way until the 9th century that the first public denial of the Real Presence came about. It was the start of another Protestant man-made tradition.
Why are many Protestants so keen on denying the Real Presence of the Catholic Eucharist? They just can’t seem to get over the fact that spiritual grace can be given by God through matter. Protestants just don’t like the fact that Catholics “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7).
Dios este contigo
— Patrick E. Devens
Miscellanies on Religion and Public life
Gender, Family and Religious History in the Modern Era
Faith, life and kick-ass moves
More beautiful than the honey locust tree are the words of the Lord - Mary Oliver
A blog pertaining to the future of the Church
Blue Labour meets Disraelite Tory meets High Church Socialist
Poems from life and the church year
Contmplations for beginners
Education Consultant www.fertileheart.org.uk
The Catholic Faith Defended
To bring identity and power back to the voice of women
“Whatever you do, do it with your whole heart.” ( Colossians 3: 23 ) - The blog of Father Richard Peers SMMS, Director of Education for the Diocese of Liverpool
Journalism from London.
Mining the collective unconscious
“Love recognizes no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to arrive at its destination full of hope.” — Maya Angelou
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34
“I come not from Heaven, but from Essex.”
Blessed be God forever.
A Monk on the Mission
“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few" Luke 10:2
Blog for poet and singer-songwriter Malcolm Guite
Thinking Religion and Philosophy
Reflections from the Dean of Southwark
Happy. Southern. Catholic.
"...a fellowship, within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church..."
A daily blog to deepen our participation in Sunday Mass
legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi
"Not all those who wander are lost"- J.R.R. Tolkien
Pictures by Catherine Young
Hope isn't an emotion, but a daily choice.
by William Newton
Just another WordPress.com site
Comments on the New Testament and Early Christianity (and related matters)
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient
reflections on Anglican teaching and practice
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam ~ For the Greater Glory of God
"We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God." __ Pope Paul VI
The view from the Anglosphere
