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.
That is one of the reasons why I reject the theory (made dogma) of transubstantiation.
I’ll take Jesus for my historian. Thanks, but no thanks. His words stand true.
Yeah, sure you will /sarc
This is a simple one to refute. The bottom line is that again, Christian doctrine is using incorrect principles of hermeneutics, reading into the text (eisegesis) a doctrine that is not there (trinity). If G-d were a trinity of persons, He would say so explicitly and plainly, given that it is so important. But no, G-d say he is alone, no other besides Him, no other Savior, etc. He never says anything like, I am G-d, I am made of father son and holy spirit etc. On the contrary, he expressly his divine singular unity.
Regarding Gen 1:26, this from Rabbi Singer
Us . . . Our . . . Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court. (see 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18)2
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, a highly regarded dispensationalist professor of Biblical Studies at the Philadelphia College of Bible and author of the widely read Bible commentary, The Ryrie Study Bible, writes in his short and to-the-point annotation on Genesis 1:26,
Us . . . Our. Plurals of majesty.3
The Liberty Annotated Study Bible, a Bible commentary published by the Reverend Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, similarly remarks on this verse,
The plural pronoun “Us” is most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.4
The 10-volume commentary by Keil and Delitzsch is considered by many to be the most influential exposition on the “Old Testament” in evangelical circles. Yet in its commentary on Genesis 1:26, we find,
The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity; modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis . . . No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis . . . .5
The question that immediately comes to mind is: What would compel these evangelical scholars -- all of whom are Trinitarian -- to determinedly conclude that Genesis 1:26 does not suggest the Trinity, but rather a majestic address to the angelic hosts of heaven? Why would the comments of the above conservative Christian writers so perfectly harmonize with the Jewish teaching on this verse?
The answer to this question is simple. If you search the Bible you will find that when the Almighty speaks of “us” or “our,” He is addressing His ministering angels. In fact, only two chapters later, God continues to use the pronoun “us” as He speaks with His angels. At the end of the third chapter of Genesis the Almighty relates to His angels that Adam and his wife have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and must therefore be prevented from eating from the Tree of Life as well; for if man would gain access to the Tree of Life he will “become like one of us.” The Creator then instructs his angels known as Cherubim to stand at the gate of the Garden of Eden waving a flaming sword so that mankind is prevented from entering the Garden and eating from the Tree of Life. Let’s examine Genesis 3:22-24.
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” -- therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
This use of the majestic plural in Genesis 3:22-24 is what is intended by the NIV Study Bible’s annotation on Genesis 1:26 (above). At the end of its comment on this verse, the NIV Study Bible provides a number of Bible sources from the Jewish scriptures to support its position that “God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court.” The verses cited are: Genesis 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, I Kings 22:19-23, Job 15:8, and Jeremiah 23:18. These verses convey to the attentive Bible reader that the heavenly abode of the Creator is filled with the ministering angels who attend the Almighty and to whom He repeatedly refers when using the plural pronoun “Us.”6
Loud Mime wrote:
Are catholics christians?
Now, don’t start this without a proper explanation.
My question was directed to some person who emphatically judged that Mormons were not Christians and had cited many reasons why there weren’t. Granted, we are entering an area of personalized stipulation and selective perceptions, so we can have many opinions.
Before I am subjected to responses by all those who you childishly alerted, please understand that I am a former altar boy - - one who knew the entire mass in Latin - - and went to Catholic School for six years. I am familiar with the Church.
Yes, they are Christians, as are all the others who follow Christ.
Explain away? It is called proper exegesis.
..."whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
From everlasting is a a bad translation of the Hebrew, it should be, from ancient days. This means the Messiah, will be of the Davidic line, David being a Bethlehemite. Many Christian bibles render it that way as well.
Regarding Isaiah 7:
From Hugh Fogelman:
In "Old Testament" days pagan gentiles had a strong tradition of belief in virgin-born savior-gods, all of whom existed centuries before the birth of Jesus. Bible writers, who were promoting Jesus of Nazareth as the Jews' long-awaited messiah, struggled mightily to fit their stories about Jesus to what they believed were Hebrew Bible prophecies about the coming messiah. In this essay we will provide information which will suggest that these writers mistakenly believed a verse about the ordinary and imminent birth of a child was a prophecy that the future messiah would be born of a virgin.
Falsely Translated Isaiah Verses Predict Virgin Birth The verse that is the heart of the controversy is found in the book of Isaiah.
Correct Translation "Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the young woman is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel"
False Translation "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
Matthew's Verses "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel" (Matthew 1:21-23)
Thus, the woman--not a virgin--is already carrying the child whose birth is imminent; thus, the Isaiah verse cannot refer to a future conception. We see above that Isaiah was not speaking of a messiah which would appear eight hundred years later; he was referring to the present. The child he spoke of was already conceived; the child, which would soon be born, would be a sign--a good omen--to a king about to engage in battle.
Note that the name of the child to be conceived was to be "Immanuel," not "Jesus" [4]. In the entire New Testament the name Immanuel appears only once, in Matthew's verse, where he quotes the false Isaiah prophecy. More than a thousand times the name "Jesus" appears in the New Testament; never once is the savior from Nazareth called "Immanuel". One would think that if Jesus was ever referred to as Immanuel, then somebody else besides Matthew would have known about it; Mark, Luke, John, Paul, or Peter would surely have mentioned the name a few times, but they mentioned it not once.
Why did Matthew think that Jesus was called Immanuel? Perhaps Matthew, a Greek Jew who didn't know the first thing about the Hebrew language, thought that the name Jesus was the Greek version of Immanuel, which means "God is with us"; but it's not, Jesus is Hellenized Greek for Joshua, which means "God is salvation".
Immanuel Is Born in Isaiah
Additional evidence that the prophet in Isaiah referred to an event soon to be realized, and not an event in Bethlehem eight hundred years later, may be found in the very next chapter in Isaiah (see table, below), where a child called "Immanuel" is born.
As proof that the boys in these two Isaiah chapters are one and the same, we may note below in the table below, both chapters mention the conquest of the lands of two kings "before the boy" reaches a certain age; this key phrase links the two chapters to the same child, Immanuel.
The unborn and born child in the two Isaiah chapters are further linked by the appearance of the name Immanuel in both places. Immanuel, which in Hebrew means "God is with us" is a name which one may be sure was carefully chosen by the prophet to reassure the king that God would be on his side. Thus, in the second chapter we see the exclamation, "O Immanuel", which is Isaiah's proud announcement that the child was born and represented a sign that "God is with us".
Before Birth of Immanuel "The young woman has conceived and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel. Before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." (Isaiah 7:14-16)
After Birth of Immanuel "And she conceived and gave birth to a son. Before the boy knows how to say My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off ......O Immanuel." (Isaiah 8:3-8)
Immanuel Was Not Perfect
Another reason for doubting that the child spoken of in Isaiah is the future Jesus Christ is that Isaiah notes that there will be a waiting period before the child will know the difference between right and wrong. This would not make sense if the child referred to by Isaiah were actually the future son of God: How could a God-entity not know the difference between right and wrong? Since the perfect son of a perfect God could not have been imperfect at birth, we have one more reason for believing that Isaiah was not prophesying the coming of the future messiah.
Conclusion
It seems possible that the author of Matthew based his virgin-birth story on the incorrectly-translated verses in Isaiah because he believed--or pretended to believe-- that the prophet in Isaiah was referring to a future virgin-birth, and not describing an already-pregnant young woman. Matthew apparently made three other mistakes, too.
(1) He evidently thought that Jesus was the Hellenized form of Immanuel, but he was wrong. (2) He apparently overlooked the fact that the child referred to in the alleged virgin-birth prophecy in Isaiah was born two chapters later. (3) He may have failed to understand that the child in that prophecy was to have a period of learning before he knew the difference between right and wrong and, which implied that the child couldn't have been the future son of God.
When all of this evidence is viewed objectively, it is hard to avoid that conclusion that Matthew was simply mistaken. This will be no problem for those who don't believe that every story in the New Testament must be true in order that one may hold the belief that Jesus is God. However, for apologists, these apparent inconsistencies present a very large problem.
To fully harmonize these apparent problems, apologists must explain these inconsistencies:
1. Jesus was not called "Immanuel," except just once, by Matthew.
2. The "prophesied" messiah would have to wait until he knew right from wrong.
3. The child referred to in Isaiah 6 was apparently born two chapters later.
4. The child-omen to a king living in 800 BCE would be Jesus in 30 CE.
5. The word "ha-almah" means "young woman," not "virgin."
6. The word "harah" is past tense, not future tense, and means "conceived."
BUT here is a SEVENTH overlooked by all other NT critics.
"THE" article is in the texts which CLEARLY meant that "THE young woman" was KNOWN to both the King and ISAIAH. They BOTH knew who the young woman in question was 800 years earlier.
Again, there is no blood sacrifice required to get atonement from sins. Prayer, Repentance and Charity are also “means of Grace”.
G-d does not lie, decieve, contradict himself or violate his own laws. And all of these things, Christian doctrine teaches.
You posted: Again, there is no blood sacrifice required to get atonement from sins.
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
So you say that the ruler is not from everlasting, but from ancient days.
To quote you: “From everlasting is a a bad translation of the Hebrew, it should be, from ancient days.”
So in your view the “ruler” won’t be from everlasting, just very, very old. Except how can they be from ancient days if they haven’t come forth yet.
Did you want to actually supply the versions of modern Christian bibles that you contend translate virgin as young woman? Otherwise it seems like your exegesis is exactly that — YOUR exegesis, and no one else’s.
Well, its nice that your God doesn’t have to be alone anymore, since He created angels and men.
John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: "This saying is hard; and who can hear it?"…66 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
St Paul tells us,
1 Cor 2:14 But the sensual man perceives not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.
Understanding the Eucharist definitely falls into that category of things that require the Holy Spirit's enlightenment. (How many Catholics don't even understand it and, thus, fall prey to deceivers?)
The best thing you can do is to pray for them as St. Paul prayed for the Church at Ephesus:
Eph 1:15b making commemoration of you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation, in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your heart enlightened that you may know what the hope is of his calling and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.
But I’ve always wondered how they’ve managed to take a YEARLY rememberance meal and turn it into something that happens every time you enter the doors of their churches.
The answer comes from John 6.
John 6:32 Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world."
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever."
(You can read the rest of John 6 for yourself, I didn't want to post more than the above and needlessly waste bandwidth)
The Eucharist is absolutely tied to the manna from heaven. Did God only feed His people manna once a year when they wandered the desert for 40 years?
Not trying to start an argument, rather, just trying to answer your question that you've posed on more than one thread.
BTW, did you ever ponder the significance of the items that were placed inside the tabernacle? (Heb 9:4)
>>Loud Mime wrote:
Are catholics christians?<<
LOLOLOLOL!!!!
>>You mean dumping of dogma into a discussion format and then not answering those that respond to the dogma.
If we wanted to be Catholics (or learn about Catholicism), we could go to Catholic churches/seminaries/websites, etc.
If we want to discuss something with a Catholic, that he or she brings up, we respond to the content of their post, and should expect the courtesy of a reply, though it is evident that many have been burned by the “dump and run” tactics I have seen repeatedly in just the past few weeks, and don’t really expect a reply.<<
You get testy with Salvation and expect to snap your fingers and get a reply? Really? Some of us, especially those with ping lists, get hundreds of post to read through.
What makes yours special?
After this post, I’d ignore you on general principal.
Please put a “caucus” title on apologetics. Pretty please.
So teaches the Church.
The Scriptures have no evidence of that.
What does that mean?
I looking for whether the Church thinks that believeing in trans... is a requirement for Salvation.
This is no longer any problem...
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.