Posted on 06/19/2015 12:01:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7
For those who don't have much familiarity with the dispute between Protestants and Catholics over the doctrine of the papacy, I want to post two introductory articles on the subject today and tomorrow. The first article, this one, will be about the Biblical evidence, and tomorrow's article will be about the early post-Biblical evidence.
Roman Catholicism claims the papacy as its foundation. According to the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the papacy was understood and universally accepted as early as the time of Peter:
"At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister....For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome" (First Vatican Council, session 4, chapters 1-2)
Different Catholics interpret these claims of the First Vatican Council in different ways. Some Catholics will argue that the concept of the papacy that was understood and accepted in the earliest generations involved universal jurisdiction, so that the differences between how modern Catholics and the most ancient Catholics viewed Peter and the bishops of Rome would be minor. Other Catholics claim, instead, that the earliest Christians wouldn't have associated a concept like universal jurisdiction with Peter and the earliest Roman bishops, and they maintain that the modern view of the papacy developed more gradually. Some Catholics even go as far as to claim that there's no need to show that a concept like universal jurisdiction was intended by Jesus and the apostles. They may argue for the papacy on the basis of philosophical speculation or personal preference, or they may claim that no argument is needed for the doctrine.
Catholics who take that last sort of approach are abandoning the battlefield without admitting defeat. Any belief could be maintained on such a basis. If we're going to accept the papacy just because it seems to produce more denominational unity than other systems of church government, because our parents were Catholic, or for some other such inconclusive reason, then we have no publicly verifiable case to make for the doctrine. My intention in these posts is to address some of the popular arguments of those who attempt to make a more objective case for the papacy.
Those who argue that a seed form of the papacy existed early on, one that wasn't initially associated with universal jurisdiction, would need to demonstrate that such a seed form of the doctrine did exist. And they would need to demonstrate that the concept of universal jurisdiction would eventually develop from that seed. It wouldn't be enough to show that the development of universal jurisdiction is possible. We don't believe that something is true just because it's possible. If we're supposed to accept a papacy with universal jurisdiction on some other basis, such as the alleged authority of the Catholic hierarchy that teaches the concept, then an objective case will have to be made for the supposed authority of that hierarchy.
If there had been a papacy in the first century that was recognized as a distinct office, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn't expect Roman Catholics to have to go to passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 to find alleged references to a papacy if such an office of universal jurisdiction existed and was recognized during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to the office, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on church government.
That's what we see with the offices of bishop and deacon. Not only are the offices mentioned (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1), but we also see repeated references to their appointment (Acts 14:23, Ephesians 4:11, Titus 1:5), their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), their discipline (1 Timothy 5:19-20), their responsibilities (Ephesians 4:12-13, Titus 1:10-11, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1-3), their reward (1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Peter 5:4), their rank (1 Corinthians 12:28), the submission due them (1 Timothy 2:11-12), etc. If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn't mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church. In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn't a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he's exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don't say a word about any papacy.
Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that "most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)" (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], n. 74 on p. 425). The Roman Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz comments:
"There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.'…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2)
What's said of Peter in Matthew 16 and John 21 is said of other people in other passages. Other people are rocks upon whom the church is built (Ephesians 2:20), other people have the keys of the kingdom that let them bind and loose and open and shut (Matthew 18:18, 23:13), and other people are shepherds of the church (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2). Just as Peter is given a second name, so are other people (Mark 3:17). Peter is called "Peter" prior to the events of Matthew 16 (John 1:42), and we can't know whether he was given the name as a result of Matthew 16 or, instead, Jesus' choice of imagery in Matthew 16 was shaped by a name Peter was already given for another reason.
Peter is singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21, but his being singled out doesn't suggest jurisdictional primacy. We could speculate that Peter is singled out in these passages because he's supposed to fulfill the roles in these passages in a greater way than other people, but such a speculation can't be proven. Other people are singled out in other passages, but we don't conclude that those people were Popes. Even if Peter was singled out because he was to fulfill these roles (rock and shepherd) in a greater way than anybody else, he wouldn't need to be a Pope in order to fulfill these roles in a greater way than other people. And he wouldn't need to have successors in that role.
So, if Peter isn't singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21 because he was being made a Pope, then why was he singled out?
In Matthew 16, he's probably singled out because he singles himself out. He's the one who answered Jesus' question. Similarly, John and James are singled out in Mark 10:35-40 because they were the ones who initiated the discussion with Jesus, not because they were being given some sort of primacy.
In John 21, Peter probably is singled out because he was the one in need of restoration. Peter was the one who denied Jesus three times and thus needed to reaffirm his love for Jesus three times. Since the other apostles didn't deny Jesus as Peter did, it would make no sense for Jesus to approach them the way He approached Peter. Similarly, Jesus treats Thomas (John 20:26-29), John (John 21:20-23), and Paul (Acts 9:1-15) differently than He treats the other apostles. But nobody would assume that Thomas, John, or Paul therefore has jurisdictional primacy or that such a primacy was passed on to a succession of bishops.
Catholics sometimes argue for a papacy by interpreting Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22:20-22. But whatever relevance Isaiah 22 would have to Matthew 16, it would have relevance for Matthew 23, Luke 11, and other passages that use such imagery as well. And any Catholic appeal to Isaiah 22 would have to be a partial appeal, not a complete parallel, since a complete parallel wouldn't favor the claims of Roman Catholicism. God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So, if Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter? What about Isaiah 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God Himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor? If Catholics only want to make a general appeal to Isaiah 22, without making an exact parallel, then how can they claim that papal authority is implied by the parallel? Why can't the Isaiah 22 background convey a general theme of authority without that authority being of a papal nature?
Paul refers to "apostles" (plural) as the highest rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20), and he names Peter second among three reputed pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). The most natural reading of the Biblical evidence is to see Peter as a highly reputed pillar of the church who had equal rank, equal jurisdiction, with the other apostles. He could be said to have had some types of primacy in some contexts, and the same could be said of other apostles and early church leaders, but there's no reason to think that papal authority was one of those types of primacy or that such authority was passed on exclusively to a succession of Roman bishops.
There is no papacy in the New Testament. It's not there explicitly or implicitly. This "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture" that the First Vatican Council refers to isn't even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Roman Catholics assume that a papacy is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can't be proven and is unlikely.
Jesus also said they’d never die, but there sure are a lot of Catholic funerals going on.
True salvation comes by believing, not by eating Jesus.
If eating and drinking were really the way to live forever, then why do Catholics die?
Why does it need to be repeated all the time? Once isn’t good enough? That would be saying that Christ’s atonement isn’t as powerful as the sin that Catholics claim make us lose it.
Don't eat the blood, the life is in the blood
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life , that is, its blood.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
Leviticus 7:26-27 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”
Leviticus 17:10-14 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
“Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.
Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.
Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life , and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 15:23 Only you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Matthew 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Mark 14:25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Unbloody sacrifice
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."188
Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.
When Christ died, His blood was poured out as was required by the law.
Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Since without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins, a bloodless sacrifice is a useless one. It cannot atone for sin.
Jesus commanded His disciples to drink the cup. Catholics claim that doing so is partaking of the literal body and blood of Himself. However, if the mass is an unbloody sacrifice, where does the blood for the cup come from?
Which body of Christ is the priest sacrificing in the mass? The old one that walked this earth?
Or the new resurrected and glorified one? The Bible is very clear that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin. (Hebrews 9:22)
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” (Leviticus 17:11)
An unbloody sacrifice is no sacrifice at all!
All of this parsing does not remove the commandment from God to not ever eat the blood, to never drink the blood, for the life is in the blood. [Gen 6; Leviticus 3:17]
A priest man cannot hold God's LIFE in a cup of wine. THE LIFE IN CHRIST'S BLOOD was spread upon the Mercy Seat, never poured out into a catholic cup.
Jesus ate the same bread He gave to His disciples, and drank from the same cup He offered to them to pass among them. Are you familiar enough with scriptures to recall where Jesus referred to a cup His disciples would drink from? [ HINT: Matt 20:22 and following; Mark 10:38 and following ]
Is the following divine metaphor or literal drinking? ... Matthew 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. ... John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
I suppose for Catholics it's always literal except when it ain't. Just like the pope is the vicar of Christ except when he ain't. It's actually humorous and sad at the same time.
Neither the binding and loosing function and power nor the use of the keys to the kingdom was unique to Peter's authority, nor flowed from him (as per Rome). The use of the keys to the kingdom was the gospel, which Peter first preached to the Jews, as providing for forgiveness and regeneration by faith in the crucified and risen righteous Lord Jesus, was exercised by Peter before he was given the revelation of Acts 10 (which Paul received independent of Peter).
Do you hold to the Biblical prohibition against eating shellfish?
Do you hold to the Ten Commandments?
Probably "no" and "yes," because the former is an example of the provisional, ceremonial Levitical laws, while the latter is an example of the eternal, moral Mosaic law.
Similarly, there are different kinds of law in Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
To know what they are, we must "listen to the church," because Christ gave His Church the power of "binding and loosing." (Matthew 16:19, 18:18)
Some law is dogmatic, infallible Teaching, and some law, like parts of canon law, governs the operation of the Church, and is comparable to the civil Levitical law. Similarly, the Church is not infallible in the realm of the natural sciences, but only when invoking Her Authority regarding matters of faith and morals.
My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, took His blood and spread it upon the Mercy Seat in Heaven, covering the law of sin and death. The Levitical laws are no longer my concern. The ritual laws are not my concern. My concern is allowing God as the indwelling Holy Spirit to be God in me. Try it, you’ll like it! Stop playing the game of the Nicolaitans.
Do you still get hungry and thirsty? Do Catholics still die?
Such a “pope” we could use
I have no doubt most of what you say is true but the seed that was planted is what I was referring to.
We know the seed Jesus planted was good but he explained that the enemy could come in and mix tares with it, he was in fact telling us that it would happen.
Since Paul is where most of the Church doctrine came from what better place for the Devil to do his work?
The Catholic Church holds Peter as the first Pope but their doctrine does not come from peter because he gave very little and the ones he gave is not disagreed on except the meaning.
While on the other hand the Protestant Churches with the least ritual and doctrine hold Paul up as their example while they are actually going by the teaching of peter.
Conclusion is that if the Catholic Church would drop Peter as first pope and adopt Paul in his place it would cause a big switch over.
If the Catholic Church would abide by the teaching of Peter I would join in a minute because he never gave no such doctrine as they have.
`
And in a couple instances that is debatable in Paul`s case.
Your comment: “True salvation comes by believing, not by eating Jesus.”
Salvation comes from doing God’s will as Jesus showed us and taught us.
Your comment:”Don’t eat the blood, the life is in the blood”
As Jesus said eat and drink MY Body and MY Blood for everlasting life. Yes the last part of your quote is right as Jesus told us it is the food and drink for everlasting life. Yes Catholics certainly get hungry and thirsty on earth. Jesus wants us to be consumed with Him in every way by loving God and our neighbor so that we join Him in Heaven.
I sorry that the protestors don’t comprehend. Even Luther believed in the Real Presence.
God Bless you.
The essence of Catholicism’s religious dogma “Salvation comes from doing”. This is of course an exact contradiction to what Jesus told the leaders of Israel and what is taught in the Bible. Search the meaning of the Greek word ‘pistis’ and its variants such as ‘pisteuo’. It is translated into English with various English words such as faith, believe. The meaning is an action, not a deed or deeds but a way of living, living in Faith, faith placed upon the Only one deserving of our faith and the only One able to fulfill that faithing with His LIFE in us.
Um, how do you offer this metaphor: “Jesus wants us to be consumed with Him”? Is that to be read we are to be eaten with Him? Are we to be eaten by Him? Are we to walk daily with Him ever in our minds and hearts consuming our thoughts all the day long? Are we to be eaten continuously? Is He supposed to consume us all day long, every day? ... Perhaps you get the gist of the false conundrum posed by your assertion!
Are you telling God that Christ's Blood can be spread ONLY on the Mercy Seat, that it may not be offered to partakers of the Eucharist? What if God is doing both? Do you want to tell Him He's wrong to do so?
I'll try to outline here my understanding of the Real Presence (which is a doctrine which I understand Martin Luther believed) and the associated doctrine of Transubstantiation, in which Christ's body and blood is miraculously transformed into the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist.
The Real Presence simply means that this transformation actually takes place at the consecration of the gifts of the bread and wine. That is, this change is real, actual — not figurative, metaphorical, or symbolic. It is a mystery — i.e., something that the rational mind cannot penetrate.
Indeed, in Matthew 26:26–28 (KJV), of the bread, Christ instructs his Apostles to "Take, eat; this is my body." Not, take, eat, this is a symbol of my body.
Of the wine, He says, "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Not, this is a symbol of my blood.
I do not believe that Christ is using figurative or symbolic language in these passages. For He knows that the world will regard these statements especially scandalous if they are intended literally (as I believe He intended); For He says, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night."
So what are we to make of the actual transubstantiation of Christ's body and blood into the gifts of the bread and wine? Or to put it differently, what, exactly, is being transubstantiated?
What of Christ's body, which is sacramentally present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, is being transubstantiated?
What is transubstantiated is Christ's divine substance, not any accidents of Christ's physical human body. Christ's substance is wholly present in the Eucharist.
Yet "substance" is not something that is ever extended in space. Physical bodies — the "accidents" of incarnation — are always spatially extended. If the Eucharist were to in any sense incorporate the idea of the transubstantiation of the accidents of Christ's Body (e.g., height, hair and skin color, weight, etc., etc.) then indeed, Catholics — and Greek Orthodox, et al. — would be practicing cannibalism. But this is not the case.
The distinction between substance and accident is a philosophical one. Suffice it to say that only accidents are perceptible and sensible to the rational mind. Substance can perhaps best be understood as the thing (for lack of a better word — Christ is not a thing!) as it actually IS in itself, not as it appears to our senses. Substance is never accessible to sense perception — nor to the rationalistic mind.
But it is accessible to the eye of faith. And miracles should not be disturbing to Christians — our faith is replete with them.
Hope this info might help....
I can see why a catholic adherent finds this unsettling, but don't accuse me of trying to inform God of His meaning. Think about whom that serves in such a discussion as this.
Your comment: “My goodness, finally descended into condescending snark have we?”Snark shows that the snarkee was not gotten to, but the snarker.You will have to let me know what got to you if it makes you think.
When that is combined with a condescending attitude towards non-Catholic Christians---doubled down.
You make lots of assumptions, most of them are wrong.
List them and I will back them up with scripture or Catholic teachings.
Your religion is negative about the teachings of Jesus and the Catholic Church so why should I listen to the same old rantings?
First, I follow no religion, I follow Jesus. As he instructed.
...negative about the teachings of Jesus-- No, the Holy Spirit does not permit that for Christians...and the Catholic Church---Yes, when they don't go along with the teachings of Jesus and the Bible.
I listed some of them, your answer was off-putting and flippant, not substantive with Biblical backup.
Sorry if Biblical Truths are rantings to you.
Thank you for the ping and for clearing up misunderstandings of scripture.
I’m not sure what you’re actually saying in this post?
It appears you’re saying there is a difference between “Real Presence” and “Transubstantiation”.......That saying “Substance is never accessible to sense perception — nor to the rationalistic mind.....But it is accessible to the eye of faith”.
So it’s a matter of what an individual wants to believe it is?
Your comment: “ A priest man cannot hold God’s LIFE in a cup of wine. THE LIFE IN CHRIST’S BLOOD was spread upon the Mercy Seat, never poured out into a catholic cup.”
You can believe whatever you want. God gave you free will. It is not the Truth. Did you read the line: Do this in Memory of Me?
j Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you;
do this in memory of me.”
20And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.k
FYI
YOUR TASKS AS A CATHOLIC
Your tasks as a Catholic, no matter what your age, are three:
Know your Catholic faith.
You cannot live your faith if you do not know it, and you cannot share with others what you do not first make your own (CCC 429). Learning your Catholic faith takes some effort, but it is effort well spent because the study is, quite literally, infinitely rewarding.
Live your Catholic faith.
Your Catholic faith is a public thing. It is not meant to be left behind when you leave home (CCC 2472). But be forewarned: Being a public Catholic involves risk and loss. You will find some doors closed to you. You will lose some friends. You will be considered an outsider. But, as a consolation, remember our Lord’s words to the persecuted: “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven” (Matt. 5:12).
Spread your Catholic faith.
Jesus Christ wants us to bring the whole world into captivity to the truth, and the truth is Jesus himself, who is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Spreading the faith is a task not only for bishops, priests, and religious—it is a task for all Catholics (CCC 905).
Just before his Ascension, our Lord told his apostles, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20).
If we want to observe all that Jesus commanded, if we want to believe all he taught, we must follow him through his Church. This is our great challenge—and our great privilege.
Where did you conjure the notion that I deny He established a remembrance of what He was about to do for them and us? Does that help you do believe that mischaracterization of what I have in fact been pounding on, that it is in fact A REMEMBRANCE, and as such metaphorically loaded with deep significance of a spiritual nature. It is not a consuming of His actual, literal blood, for that contradicts His commandments to ALL THEIR GENERATIONS, even the ones to come!
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.