Posted on 04/22/2010 9:55:26 PM PDT 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.
Opportunities of Grace: The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper
Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.
Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.
The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.
The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.
The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.
The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.
The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.
Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.
The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).
Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.
The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.
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 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.
Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.
Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.
Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.
The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.
Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.
In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.
Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.
The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."
Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.
The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.
Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.
Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.
In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.
Absolutely right. I was, however addressing the following question by Ken4TA:
If what one reads in the Bible cannot be understood, what in the world is the reason for even reading it?
Private interpretation of the Bible is not condoned in the Bible Itself (2 Peter 1:20). Christ founded a Church, not a Bible. In the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
By Jesus in giving all baptized followers of Him the Holy Spirit to lead one in all things! Read closely what I said in previous posts to you and others. Trying to pin something down with an exact Scripture verse is ridiculous. Where do you find "priestly" offices in the Bible that refer to Christianity? Where do you find any "devotion" to a supposedly "sacred heart of Mary" in the Scriptures? Give me a verse authorizing you to believe so!
see my post 181
In the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful).
In other words, "sheep" (the faithful), are not guided by the Holy Spirit? Hmmm....I object in the name of the Christ, Jesus! I realize you're just spouting what the Hierarchy of the RCC teaches, but you should read the Bible for yourself and then be full convinced in your own mind instead of someone else's mind.
“are used to describe one who offers a sacrifice. So does the Catholic priest. No contradiction here.”
If you are talking about the mass, you are showing either a complete ignorance of or total disregard for the teaching of Hebrews 9 in that Christ was offered ONCE and no more sacrifice for sin remains other than the one ALREADY made.
The mass and “priests” offering sacrifices (other than sacrifices of praise, etc.) contradicts the EXPLICIT teaching of Hebrews.
Yes, of course, we are guided by the Holy Spirit. Before reading Scripture, we usually say a prayer asking the Holy Spirit to enlighten us.
realize you're just spouting what the Hierarchy of the RCC teaches, but you should read the Bible for yourself and then be full convinced in your own mind instead of someone else's mind.
I have read the Bible for myself. The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even Martin Luther, near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Look around you ... there are more than 30,000 christian churches. Only one can have the truth.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 30,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No."
Did the early Christians have the Bible as we know it? No. The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus I). So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written "Word of God" to follow His teachings? Well, naturally, they were the Body of Christ and were taught through "oral" teachings by the Church, not by writings.
You posted: “there are more than 30,000 christian churches. Only one can have the truth.”
Then the odds of your particular “Christian” sect being “the one” is pretty slim.
Carry your logic a little farther: There are over 6 billion people in the world. Only one can have the truth.
You need to do some serious study in tha area of epistemology if you want to be informed enough to make the kinds of statements you are attempting to make with any believable coherence.
And just so you’ll know, I don’t know ANY Christians who claim their interpretation of Scripture is infallible, except some of those those who have subscribed to the false claims of Roman Catholicism.
It is the Word of God, the Bible, or the Scriptures (however you want to identify the Old and New Testaments, excluding the Apocrypha) that I, and most I know, claim are infallible in their original autographs — which is another subject.
If you are "guided by the Holy Spirit" how is it that you can't understand what He tells you? Doesn't your "prayer" help you to understand?
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The...History has shown that the answer is "No."
This whole paragraph is philosophical meandering and poses something that is not Biblical. It is the mere wandering of the human mind...not the leading of the Holy Spirit.
The Bible as a whole was not compiled until the late 4th century and then it was compiled by a Catholic saint (St. Jerome) at the request of a Catholic pope (St. Damasus I).
Jerome didn't, I repeat, didn't "compile" the Bible. He merely translated it into the Latin Language, and wasn't all that proficient with the Hebrew and Greek language. History shows you that! And, BTW, he didn't want to include the apocrypha as inspired scripture - although after he died they were added, with the influence of Augustine in 397.
So how were the early Christians saved if they did not possess the entire written "Word of God" to follow His teachings? Well, naturally, they were the Body of Christ and were taught through "oral" teachings by the Church, not by writings.
The early Christians had the apostles and the letters sent to various Christian assemblies, i.e., what you now call the church. Before they died they put down on scrolls what they taught. There is no evidence that they passed down things that they hadn't taught. And what they taught and recorded in the Gospels and Letters were enough to save a persons being (soul). Early Christians certainly didn't need any of the traditions later made doctrines and dogma by a hierarchy of an organization pretending to be speaking for Christ on earth - including putting it forth that the Bishop of Rome was the one and only "vicar" of Christ, i.e., taking Christ's place on earth.
Another thing: Are not all Christians part of the body of Christ? Or do you think that it is only the hierarchy that is the church?
A close friend of mine who was a Biblical Scholar had this to say about the Catholic church. "There is a sense in which the Catholic masses are not the church. The church, technically, is the hierarchy, particularly the college of cardinals and the papacy. Catholics belong to the church as a team of oxen belongs to an Asian Farmer, sheep to a shepherd, or cattle to a western rancher. it is conceded that the Catholic populace make the papacy possible as cattle make possible the role of a rancher who burns his brand deeply upon them and does with them what he wills. Catholics have little if any control over the system to which they belong. They are the exploited, not the exploiters. they are to be loved and enlightened, as many have been - on both counts, to their liberation and salvation."
To continue, he also says: "Moreover it is open to question whether every occupant of the papal seat is to be equated with the man of sin. The papacy was centuries in the making. Paul indicated the apostasy which would culminate in the man of sin was "already working" as he was writing. But the full blown apostasy that would grow from it was yet to come, and the lawless one who would exploit it was yet to be revealed."
"The papacy reached its zenith in the dark ages and was then smitten by the "spirit (Greek, pneumati) of Christ" when He returned spiritually through the written word via the reformation. The papacy began to wane through the agency of the Word, and is still waning. It has already diminished greatly. High ranking officials even at the cardinal level are questioning the infallibiity of the pope, his role as Peter's successor, and other doctrines essential to the historic function of the papacy."
"It would be too much to expect that the Roman Catholic church will have ceased to exist when Christ returns. That will scarecely be true of other apostasies with which we now contend. Even if He should tarry for yet some time this likely will remain so. But when He comes in person He will "finish off" all perpetrators of apostasy, yea, even all those who names are not found in the book of life (Rev. 20:10-15)."
Your turn....
On the contrary. Christ founded one Church, not many. Should the Bible be the final authority of Christianity or the Church? Well, Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 ) Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, not Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture. For if individuals could correctly interpret Scripture, then all interpretations would be exactly the same as there can only be one Spiritual Truth for the plural of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).
Is there to be only one Church or many? According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many. Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (essentially a spiritual form of the the sin of polygamy)? No, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many).
Thank you for the kind words.
Regarding Mary, Protestants tend to minimize her appearance in the Scripture. After Jesus and St. Peter, she is mentioned in the Gospels more than any one else. She gave birth to Christ, gave us all an example of obedience and service to God, she was with Jesus as a young boy and through His ministry, she was at the foot of the Cross, with the Apostles at the birth of the Church at the Pentacost. She is foretold in Genesis 3:15 and then she appears as the Queen of Heaven in Rev. 12, — she literally brackets the entire scripture.
If you read the scripture attentively, and not one prooftext to the next like the Protestants do, you will become Catholic.
But there is not a single place in the Bible that insinuates that a "priest" is an office in the church of Christ.
Because at the time there was no disctintion between "presbyteros" and "episcopos": priests were also bishops. For bishop being an office, see either Timothy, or Titus, or Acts 20:28, or James 5:14 (The latter, actually, speaks of "presbyteros" administering a sacrament). Here it is again:
Acts of the Apostles Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) English: Douay-Rheims Acts of the Apostles 20
28. προσεχετε ουν εαυτοις και παντι τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του κυριου και θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του ιδιου αιματος Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
The work of a "priest" is to offer sacrifices
Which the Holy Eucharist is (1 Cor. 11:26).
what "scripture" are you referring to?
Acts 20:28, just quoted above.
The Mass is the same sacrifice that Jesus offered. It is not a separate sacrifice.
Because at the time there was no disctintion between "presbyteros" and "episcopos": priests were also bishops. For bishop being an office, see either Timothy, or Titus, or Acts 20:28, or James 5:14 (The latter, actually, speaks of "presbyteros" administering a sacrament).
Absolutely, never does the Bible insinuate a distinction between a "presbyteros" and the office he holds (the episcopos). To put it in English terms, the "presbyteros" (elder/shepherd-pastor) holds the office of an "episkopos" (Bishop) and is not a "hiereus" (priest). Nor does a "presbyteros" offer a sacrifice, especially something that is in the realm of superstition and/or mysticism. Any Elder/shepherd-pastor can administer "oil" on a sick person per James 5:14, just as any Christian can do so.
The distinction between the words describing the one who held the office of the episkopos/bishop is ridiculous to the extreme if one examines what is said of those words. They all point to a single man or plural usage of plural men.
BTW, point out one single verse of Scripture which says that a "priest" is connected to the office of an "episcopos" or is a "presbyteros"! Give proof for what you assert.
"The work of a "priest" is to offer sacrifices"
Which the Holy Eucharist is (1 Cor. 11:26).
In other words an unbiblical named office of a person performing a sacrifice that was done "once for all" by Jesus the Christ? Take that up with God at Judgment Day.
The Bible never draws the distinction between “episcopos” and “presbyteros”, — they are used interchangeably, at times in the same sentence. We saw a passage like that in the Acts not long ago.
How is 1 Cor. 11:26 unbiblical?
Really? Does that mean that Jesus' sacrifice "once for all" was not good enough and has to be reenacted by someone in the hierarchy in churches all around the world?
I don't find your argument all that coherent. It's reasoning is way beyond the pale.
HUH? "As often as you eat this bread and drink of the cup you declare the death of the Lord until He comes again." How in the world is that a "sacrifice"? (Literal Greek Translation). Also, where in that verse, in context with the rest of the passage, does it say that one has to be anything other than a Christian?
The Bible never draws the distinction between “episcopos” and “presbyteros”, — they are used interchangeably, at times in the same sentence. We saw a passage like that in the Acts not long ago.
Correct, the Bible never draws any distinction between the aspect of a person and the office he holds. Also, they are not used "interchangeably" - they refer to the same man or men, depending on the words being singular or plural.
I read John Hardon’s words about the mass. They are anti-biblical mumbo-jumbo based on Catholic traditions.
Would you care to expound Hebrews 9 from your knowledge of the Greek...in order to prove to yourself Hardon’s words correct, or, if you can do it objectively, see why it is not possible for his teaching on the mass to be in accordance with the Word of God?
If you think Mary is in Revelation 12, literally, like your “Jesus” is sacrificed over and over again in direct contradiction to the Scriptures, then you must think she is going to be resurrected to “flee into the wilderness to be fed by God for 1260 days...”
Rev 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days.
Anything you believe wouldn’t surprise me, as long as it was told you by the Catholic Church, as you seem to have abdicated your reason to Catholic dogma.
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.