Posted on 03/09/2010 9:49:50 PM PST by Salvation
This website surveys the origin and development of Roman Catholic Christianity from the period of the apostolic church, through the post-apostolic church and into the conciliar movement. Principal attention is paid to the biblical basis of both doctrine and dogma as well as the role of paradosis (i.e. handing on the truth) in the history of the Church. Particular attention is also paid to the hierarchical founding and succession of leadership throughout the centuries.
This is a set of lecture notes used since 1985 to teach the basis for key doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The objectives of the course were, and are:
The course grew out of the need for the authors to continually answer questions about their faith tradition and their work. (Both authors are active members of Catholic parish communities in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Robert Schihl was a Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Communication and the Arts at Regent University. Paul Flanagan is a consultant specializing in preparing people for technology based changes.) At the time these notes were first prepared, the authors were spending time in their faith community answering questions about their Protestant Evangelical workplaces (Mr. Flanagan was then a senior executive at the Christian Broadcasting Network), and time in their workplaces answering similar questions about their Roman Catholic faith community. These notes are the result of more than a decade of facilitating dialogue among those who wish to learn more about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and why.
Interpretation of John 6:25-69
Following the details of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes--biographical, Jesus walking on the sea--biographical, Jesus reacts to the crowds' need for signs. Jesus takes them from manna, bread from heaven, to "true bread from heaven (v. 32)" ... "I am the bread (v. 35)." "I am the bread that came down from heaven (v. 41)." This is God saying this: "I am the bread that came down from heaven." If He was not really the bread that came down from heaven, His omnipotent and creative Word would then have made it so.
Five times in different verbal expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of the meaning he intended.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus, knowing their thoughts and their error, would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: Apologetics Without Apology
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: An Incomplete Picture
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Foundation: Dearly Beloved Catholic Brothers and Sisters
Being Catholic and Christian: Faith and Salvation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics:Being Catholic & Christian:Faith and Salvation-Authoriative
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Being Catholic & Christian: Apostolic Confessions of Faith
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Post-Apostolic Confessions of Faith
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Salvation: A Biblical Portrait
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Salvation: "Being Saved"
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Catholic Response to "Are You Saved?"
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Knowledge of Salvation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Faith and Works
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Process of Christian Initiation
The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic: Jesus Christ preached a Reign or Kingdom, the Kingdom of God (or of heaven).
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached an end-times kingdom but one already existing on earth
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached that the kingdom was primarily spiritual and internal but also visible and external.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ called and founded an exclusive, inner core group of twelve men called the "apostles."
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ committed His very mission to this twelve man inner core group, his Apostles, alone.
Christ gave to the Twelve, the Apostles, the power of ruling, teaching and sanctifying.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: This same church Christ willed to endure until the end of the world.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ instituted only one church, and that society was both formally and specifically a visible one.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Marks of the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Labels Among Christians
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Genealogy of Christian Faith Communities, Roman Catholicism
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: American Christian Branches Among European Founded Churches
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Modes of Transmitting Authoritative Doctrine
The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic: Jesus Christ preached a Reign or Kingdom, the Kingdom of God (or of heaven).
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached an end-times kingdom but one already existing on earth
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Jesus preached that the kingdom was primarily spiritual and internal but also visible and external.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ called and founded an exclusive, inner core group of twelve men called the "apostles."
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ committed His very mission to this twelve man inner core group, his Apostles, alone.
Christ gave to the Twelve, the Apostles, the power of ruling, teaching and sanctifying.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: This same church Christ willed to endure until the end of the world.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Christ instituted only one church, and that society was both formally and specifically a visible one.
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Marks of the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Labels Among Christians
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Genealogy of Christian Faith Communities, Roman Catholicism
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: American Christian Branches Among European Founded Churches
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Modes of Transmitting Authoritative Doctrine
Divine Revelation "By Letter" (2 Thes 2:15) The Bible
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Divine Revelation "By Letter" (2 Thess 2:15): The Bible
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Divine Revelation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Bible: Written Revelation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: The Hebrew Scriptures: Books of the Old Testament
Historical and Geographical Background for the Development of the Two Old Testament Canons
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Background Chart: Development of the Old Testament Canons
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Chronology of the Apostolic Age and the Development of the New Testament Canon
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Comparison of Terms for Disputed Books
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Inspiration of the Bible
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Understanding Revelation
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Understanding Revelation: Literal Sense
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Literary Form and History of John 6:25-69
Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Hermeneutics: Interpretation of John 6:25-69
Now, I really, truly am confused.
In what way are you confused?
Are you not believing the words of Christ?
**Five times in different verbal expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of the meaning he intended. **
No, I think Belteshazzar is lacking faith in the words of Jesus, just in the interpretational leap being made in this “Hermeneutical” endeavor.
Let me simplify things a bit:
What does mankind need to live? Food and drink.
Biblical translations use “bread” to mean a variety of things - from literal bread, to a generic term for food.
Jesus was clearly saying that HE was the ultimate nourishment (in a spiritual sense) for TRUE life that comes only through Jesus Christ.
The argument (and the purpose for this article) is to defend transubstantiation - the Catholic belief that the bread and the wine used in Communion are somehow miraculously transmogrified into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. This step is necessary then to justify the classification of Communion as a “sacrament” - one of the steps necessary for salvation.
Unfortunately, this then requires one to overlook the inconsistencies or worse - contradictions - that this sets up.
Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:23-30 being the most obvious and cited examples.
There are many other inconsistencies - one that is glaring to me, and should be to others, is God’s prohibition against consuming blood (Leviticus 7), and in fact - Jewish traditions held the consumption of blood to be a pagan ritual.
Even more interesting - the predominant religion (official before being replaced by “Christianity”) practiced, particularly among the soldier class, in the Roman empire -the Cult of Mithras, practiced the eating of the flesh of sacrifice, and the drinking of the blood. The belief was that drinking the blood of the sacrifice granted eternal life. Sound familiar?
So - with this context in-hand (text without context is nothing but a pretext), we should see how the “Communion”/Lord’s Supper/Eucharist/Lord’s Table has evolved.
And lest we forget that the early history of the Catholic Church’s efforts to spread Christianity was through the sword and through the assimilation of local pagan religious practices into the regular practice of The Church.
But I know that I will get beat up over this post. God is not the author of confusion. Thus any interpretation or adding to God’s word that creates confusion or conflict with other portions of God’s Word cannot be of God.
I believe Jesus was contrasting the need to eat His flesh and drink His blood, over and against pagan worship that you referenced.
Obviously as a Protestant I believe the blood and wine are symbolic, not actual. But I believe the point of this Bible passage is the contrast with the surrounding pagan worship.
Jesus ate the bread and wine at the Last Supper, as most have seen illustrated in the great painting by Da Vinci. He was physically present there, body and blood. No one there seemed to be under the impression that parts of His body or servings of His blood were being served as He Himself sat there and partook with them.
So did almost everyone else, until the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, invented the notion of transubstantiation out of whole cloth.
The doctrine of the Eucharist that was accepted semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, is that of the Real Presence.
“And lest we forget that the early history of the Catholic Church’s efforts to spread Christianity was through the sword and through the assimilation of local pagan religious practices into the regular practice of The Church.” —> oh, that is hilarious. You mean that The Church spread Christianity to the Roman Empire through the sword? And we worship Thor and Odin? That’s historically so inaccurate, it makes the 9/11 conspiracy theory sound sane
Transubstantiation is as big a theological joke as Joseph Smith’s golden plates.
No Council had to invent anything.
Christ said, “This is by Body.”
“This is my Blood.”
“Do this in remembrance of me.”
Straight from the mouth of Jesus. Absolutely the truth!
You do know what a metaphor is?
No to both of you. What I am really, truly confused about is why anyone (in this case, Salvation) would introduce another, nearly identical thread, a day after the first one. This is the behavior of an ADHD-plagued child, not that of someone who is looking for any serious consideration and discussion of the Biblical theology.
In the case of TheBattman’s attempt to enlist me in his own ranks, I don’t find any fewer “interpretational leap(s)” than in Salvation’s borrowed assertions. Neither is really looking at the text of John 6, but using it as, yes, a pretext to leap to their already chosen conclusions.
So, in a way, quite a lot is being revealed about the hermeneutic of each.
Who said anything about worshiping Thor and Odin?
But I did say the Church spread via the sword. Remember the whole “Holy Roman Empire”? When the Catholic Church became one with the “government”, imperialism was used (and the sword/stake/etc) to “keep” the “faith”.
There is a pretty extensive list of pagan practices adopted by the Catholic Church as part of their method of assimilation. Many of our no generally accepted traditions around Christmas and Easter are prime examples.
I grew up Episcopalian (what I consider the kissing-cousin of Catholicism. I grew up with a fairly heavy respect for the Catholic Church. But then I discovered such books at Fox’s Book of Martyrs, and began studying the inconsistencies in the version of Christian history I had grown up hearing.
I began to ponder why some very faithful Christians I know did not celebrate the “traditional” way at Christmas, Easter, and so-on.
And most importantly, I began to regularly and faithfully read the Bible.
We scream here on FR about liberal revision of US History - yet so many won’t even consider digging into the history of Christianity. They are simply content to take centuries of “official” and very controlled history and tradition and don’t question anything.
There is still enough of history that the Catholic Church wasn’t able to completely destroy, burn, conceal, or re-write if one simply is willing to be open to the possibility that the truth is out there.
And please understand - that while I may come across as a Catholic hater because of my frequent posts on Catholic-related threads, that could not be farther from the truth. I try to speak in love as Christ would have His disciples do. Salvation is not directly linked to a denominational label, but specifically and ONLY in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Not in our works (that none may boast/brag). Not in any other. The desire of God’s heart is that none should perish, but all would come to eternal life. Those of us who truly believe the Word of God, also have such a desire. Anything that teaches “another Gospel” is clearly warned about in God’s Word.
For it is by Grace you are saved, not of yourselves (nothing you can do for yourself), it is a Gift of God, that none may boast.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. That whosoever believes on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
“There is still enough of history that the Catholic Church wasn’t able to completely destroy, burn, conceal, or re-write if one simply is willing to be open to the possibility that the truth is out there.” —> Ahem, like which, might I ask? Foxes book? Or “The Key” by the Paulicians? Or the Gospel of Thomas by the Gnostics?
Does no one view it as the metaphor of Yah'shua as the living word of G-d.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachTo read, ingest and be nourished by the Word of G-d.
John 6:4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near.Does the Bread and Wine of the Passover have no meaning ?I guess not as the Roman "church" rejects Yah'shua's Commanded Feasts.
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.