Posted on 02/26/2014 9:49:13 AM PST by Dr. Thorne
Following are my notes on a sermon that I preached shortly after I was converted from the Catholic Church back in 1962. It was the first sermon that I preached. Introduction:
In this lesson I want to state some of the reasons I left the Catholic Church. I do not wish to state any of the personal experiences I had as result of leaving. I will mention, though, that I came from a large, devout Catholic family of twelve children. I attended Trinity High School in Louisville, Kentucky. At the time of my intense Scriptural study, I had two brothers who were enrolled in Catholic seminaries studying to be priests. I also want to state I did not leave the Catholic Church because of some evil that I had done or that was done to me. I left the Catholic Church because I came to believe that it was contrary to the Bible. This I will endeavor to show in this study.
(Excerpt) Read more at bible.ca ...
To wit, "This is the body of Christ."
"No, it's not. It's bread."
"It's been changed"
It hasn't been transformed! It still looks like bread to me
The form hasn't been changed, so it hasn't been transformed, but rather the substance has been changed; it's been transubstantiated.
To the simple Christian, "this IS" is sufficient. But Satan has poisoned people's minds. But the Church, acting as the body of Christ, does not abandon those people, but rather is always able to give a reply to whatever sophistry Satan has prepared.
I won't be back until next Sunday. (Technically, Thursday night for Adoration but who's counting).
And by responding to Satan, the Catholic church abandons the example of the Savior. "It is written!" That would be a policy of non-abandoment (sic). By creating this answer to Satan, they echo Satan himself "Did God really say?" Yeah, He did.
The Catholic Church teaches as it always has that both the cup and the bread contain the completeness of Christ: the body, blood, soul and divinity. Either suffices.
There was a time when the Catholic church protected the body of Christ by asserting that only a priest’s hands should ever touch it. During that time, it became common practice to have the priest distribute only the bread, since it was cumbersome to have one person distribute both the bread and the wine.
In Bohemia, however, a mischievous demon sought to sow jealousy between those in the countryside, who, owing to commonly having only one priest, only received the bread, while in the Cathedrals, universities, and Basilicae, there were many priests, so both could be offered. This spawn of Satan said that the bumpkins were being doomed to Hell, because they were denied the body of Christ, in spite of their fidelity to the Church, and their belief in Christ. So, the Church condemned the heretic, and, in its prudential wisdom and temporal authority given to Peter by Christ demanded of all the faithful that they ascent to only receiving the bread, so there was no division between the bumpkins and the elite.
At Vatican II, however, the Church no longer saw the need for the laity to demonstrate their rejection of the slanders of Hus, and instead decided to allow the faithful to receive both the bread and wine when feasible.
So you’re arguing that the Church should never demonstrate why they believe what they believe, and how it is consistent with scripture, but should insist on blind obedience?
Oh, and by the way: Jesus certainly did EXPLAIN the scriptures, even to Satan himself.
Also, there’s this:
8.29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.”
8.30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
8:31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
You mean can I explain it to you? Okay.
Once you allow for adding things to Scripture you open the door for any sort of nonsense like, say, wearing holy underwear, becoming a god, dispossessing oneself of aliens with an e-meter, or thinking that a clergyman has the authority to absolve you of sins that Jesus forgives just for the asking.
Better?
'Like it always has'. Then the early church wasn't Catholic else it would be the standard. Scriptural accounts have the bread and the wine.
Demonstrate it yes, making up a non-scriptural process for something that isn’t explained in scripture, no. And since it is extra-scriptural you create more controversy, because your process doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
No, Christ quoted scripture to Satan, His only explanation, “Away with you,[d] Satan! Christ didn't explain anything to Satan.
As for Philip, he was teaching, not surprisingly he was expounding on scripture as directed by the Holy Spirit.
So, again you are saying that the Church should simply do this:
Church: The bible says, “This IS my body.”
Questioning believer: It looks like bread to me.
Church: Shut up and go to Hell, infidel.
Instead of mercifully explaining how that which looks like bread is nonetheless the body of Christ?
Logically, your position would have to provide scripture which puts tradition plus scriptures as pre-eminent. And then opine on such logic for when scripture and a particular tradition conflict. Which at that point one or the other, either tradition or scripture would have to 'rule' in the decision.
Okay...what?
My own post addresses and refers to the thread subject, on the pastor in question, remember?
Your highjack of the subject at hand, over to your discomfort with St. John, and the meaning of a long words, might make a nice interpretive thread of your own, elsewhere.
Do you think there were theologians in the 2nd century AD who had full access to the NT books, opined on them, sent letters on them and preached them?
A debatable (as we have debated in the past) premise, yet a valid one to discuss no less. You do well presenting the excuses for the ancient past. What excuse do we have since the printing press and literacy rates increased? We don't have excuses today at all.
mercifully explaining
Where is the 'mercy' in making up something to explain a process 'how' that belongs to the un-revealed counsel of God.
Catholics pray to Mary. They’ve been told by their priesthood that they don’t, but white is not black. SSaying they don’t is like Bill Clinton saying he tried marijuana but didn’t inhale, and he didn’t lie about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, it just depends on what your definition of “is” is. Catholics regard Mary as sinless and holy and worship her. In the Rosary they address her, do they not, as >>>OUR LIFE<<<, >>>OUR SWEETNESS<<<, and >>>OUR HOPE<<<. I also am a native of a very Catholic area, and left it because Christianity is virtually dead there, and many times I’ve heard Catholics on TV and radio talk like Mary is God, especially like she’s the Holy Spirit.
You brought up John 6 in the pastoral context.
Acts 4:
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Yes. That’s good. My error. Thx, Rita
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.