Vanishing Catholics

According to recent demographic surveys, it seems there are presently 30 million people in the U.S. who identify themselves as “former Catholics.” That figure is both surprising, and, for Catholics, disheartening.

Over the past 50 years or so, a profound change, other than that effected by Vatican II, has taken place in the Catholic Church. It might be described as the phenomenon of “vanishing Catholics.” The Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor, has identified four major challenges facing the Church today. First on his list is the exodus of young adults from the Church. According to recent demographic surveys, it seems there are presently 30 million people in the U.S. who identify themselves as “former Catholics.” That figure is both surprising, and, for Catholics, disheartening. It represents a little less than 10 percent of the total population of this country. It also means that had those persons remained Catholic, approximately one in three Americans would be identified as Catholic. Only two religious groups represent a larger percentage of the U.S. population: Protestants (cumulatively) and current Catholics.

This phenomenon is disheartening not only for bishops and priests, but also for faithful Catholics generally. Many older Catholics are saddened at the sight of their children and grandchildren abandoning the Church.

Questions naturally arise. What has caused such a massive defection? How might one account for this phenomenon? It hardly seems possible that any single factor could explain a phenomenon of such magnitude. Various reasons for people leaving the Church are well-known. Many of them have been operative from the earliest times of Christianity. In his first letter to Timothy, St. Paul reminds him that “The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines …” (1 Tm 4:1-7). In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul speaks of dissensions and divisions among the faithful (1 Cor 1:10-16).

From the first centuries up to modern times, there have been doctrinal differences (heresies) which led to great numbers separating themselves from the Roman Catholic Church. Many others have left the Church for what can be described as practical reasons, rather than doctrinal differences.

Among the latter, there are many who separated themselves from the Church because of marriage problems. There are those who left because they became greatly dissatisfied with inadequate preaching, uninviting liturgy, and minimal hospitality in their parishes. It seems worth noting that expecting church attendance and public worship to be therapeutically satisfying often leads to disappointment and eventual alienation.

Not a few have left the Church because of real or perceived mistreatment by bishops or pastors. Reactions have a way of becoming overreactions. An overreaction to clericalism and paternalism in the Church resulted in autonomy becoming absolute. Evelyn Underhill offered a helpful analogy in this regard. She likened the Church to the Post Office. Both provide an essential service, but it is always possible to find an incompetent and annoying clerk behind the counter. Persons who expect all representatives of the Church to live up to the ideals proposed by the Church will typically become disillusioned and leave. Persons with such expectations would have left the Church of the Holy Apostles.

Most recently, a cause for many leaving the Church is the scandal of clergy sexual abuse. This has been a stumbling block not only for those directly affected, but for Catholics generally. Because of the questionable role played by a number of bishops, their moral authority is diminished. The time when bishops could command is past. Now, they can only hope to persuade and invite. Loyalty to bishops had been widely identified with loyalty to the Church. As the former loyalty diminished, so did the latter.

Clearly there are times when the Church is more of an obstacle than a help to faith. At Vatican II, the Council Fathers pointed out that the Church is always in danger of concealing, rather than revealing, the authentic features of Christ. Often enough, members of the Church’s leadership have been guilty of a sin typical of many religious teachers—namely, being more concerned about preservation of their authority than about the truth.

While specific reasons can be cited, it is helpful to recognize several underlying attitudes that are operative. (1) There is an anti-dogmatic spirit which is suspicious of the Church’s emphasis on fidelity to traditional teachings. (2) There is the widespread belief that one can be free to ignore, deny, or minimize one or more received doctrines without feeling compelled to break with the Church. (3) There is also the belief that, guided by their own conscience, regardless of how that matches—or fails to match—generally accepted Catholic teaching, persons can develop their own understanding of what it means to be Catholic. Someone has coined a phrase that describes persons with those attitudes, calling them “cafeteria Catholics,” i.e., those who pick and choose what to accept of official Catholic teaching and ignore the rest.

Two questions arise in the face of the phenomenon of “vanishing Catholics.” One question is of a more theological and ecclesial level: are those departed to be considered heretics or schismatics? A second question arises at the practical level: how can those who have left be reunited with the Church? Regarding the first question, it is worth noting that, while speaking of dissension and division among the faithful, and of separation from the community of believers, the New Testament does not make a distinction between heresy and schism. Since the definition of the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction, it is difficult to see how there can be a schism that is not a heresy.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2089), heresy “is the obstinate, post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is, likewise, an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” Schism is “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” The Theological Dictionary, compiled by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, defines heresy as “primarily an error in matters of faith. The heretic takes a truth out of the organic whole, which is the faith, and because he looks at it in isolation, misunderstands it, or else denies a dogma.” “Schism occurs when a baptized person refuses to be subject to the Pope, or to live in communion with the members of the Church, who are subject to the Pope.”

In any case, given the variety of reasons for people leaving the Church, the degree of separation, and especially assuming good will on the part of those leaving, it is difficult to classify them as heretics or schismatics. Church authorities have the right and the duty to take measures against heresy and schism when those become evident. Clear denial of a dogma cannot be tolerated. But between this and a purely private, material heresy, there are many shades. Not every challenge to accepted theology is heretical. There are many partial non-identifications that endanger faith and unity but do not rise to the level of schism. Nor does every act of disobedience to human laws in the Church imply schism.

While speculative questions about heresy and schism are significant and need to be addressed, they pale in comparison to the practical question of how those departed can be reunited with the Church. That question is as complex as are the reasons for people leaving the Church. That question is further complicated when one addresses the question of the underlying attitudes that are operative.

Obviously, the Church must work at removing any obstacles to reunion. With Vatican II, that work was begun. The Council recognized the Church is semper reformanda, always needing to be reformed. The actual return of individuals requires something more than an adjustment in Church practices or new programs. It is a matter of God touching the individual with his grace.

A final question that can prove troubling is how the massive defection from the Church is to be reconciled with God’s providence. This is simply one of many instances in which we are challenged to believe in an omnipotent God, who is also a loving, provident Father. Providence is not an occasional, intrusive, manipulative presence, but one that is with us both in tragedy and in joy, in the joy that consists not so much in the absence of suffering, as in the awareness of God’s presence. To find the strength to experience calmly the difficulties and trials that come into our lives is a tremendous challenge. If, however, we are able to do that, every event can be “providential.” In a sermon on the feast of the Ascension, Pope Leo the Great said: “For those who abandon themselves to God’s providential love, faith does not fail, hope is not shaken, and charity does not grow cold.”

There can be a very subtle, almost imperceptible temptation to think we know better than God how things should be. We can be like the naive little girl, who, in her prayers, told God that if she were in God’s place, she would make the world better. And God replied: “That is exactly what you should be doing.”

OBJECTION: The proposition Sola Scriptura contradicts church history, in that no one ever asserted the doctrine before Martin Luther invented it.

REPLY: I propose to provide, in the following lines, evidence to the contrary.

Let us consider the view of St. Thomas Aquinas, the theologian whom most Roman Catholics regard as the greatest systematic expounder of their position. In discussing the Creeds, he writes as follows:

Objection: It would seem that it is unsuitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a creed. Because Holy Writ is the rule of faith, to which no addition or subtraction can lawfully be made, since it is written (Deut. 4:2): “You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it.” Therefore it was unlawful to make a creed as a rule of faith, after Holy Writ had once been published.
Reply: The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression, and sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something gathered from it. (Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 1, Article 9)

Thomas, you will notice, does not say that in order to learn the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs to have an infallible or authoritative interpreter, but only “long study and practice.” His position seems clear enough. We gain our knowledge of the revealed truth from the Scriptures, just as we gain our knowledge of, say, the facts of chemistry by experiment and observation. And someone might argue that, ideally, the best way to teach someone chemistry is to hand him some beakers and test tubes and Bunsen burners and say, “Go to work. Examine things. Observe them. Heat them and chill them and combine them and weigh and measure them and draw your own conclusions.” And the speaker would have a point. However, since life is short, we provide the student with a short-cut in the form of a textbook which contains a summary of the results of centuries of experiment and observation by thousands of chemists. Similarly, it might be argued that the ideal way of teaching someone the truth of faith is to hand him a Bible and say: “Start reading. See what it says, and draw your own conclusions.” However, since life is short, we provide a summary of the Christian faith in the form of the Apostles’s Creed or the Nicene Creed.

But note that if the student asks, after reading the text, “How do we know that an atom of oxygen has a nucleus with eight electrons surrounding it, two in the inner shell and six in the outer?”, the answer must ultimately take the form of an appeal to experiment and observation. Simply saying, “We know because the text says so,” is not good enough. The authority of the text rests on its claim to be a faithful summary of the results of experimentation. Similarly, the validity of the Creed rests upon its being an accurate representation of the truth of faith as taught in Holy Scripture. And this, according to Thomas, because the truth of faith is revealed to us nowhere else. Sola Scriptura!

Again, in another place, Thomas writes as follows:

Some say than even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion.
For such things as spring from God’s will, and beyond the creature’s due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of the Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of the Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, the Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; – even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate. (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 1, Article 3)

Here also, the position of Thomas seems clear. Some truths we can know simply by “figuring them out.” (Thus, although we learn from Numbers 7:86 that 12 times 10 = 120, and from the rest of the chapter some other parts of the 12 times table, we would be able to figure them out without a special revelation!) Other truths we can know only if God reveals them to us. And if a truth is of the second kind, we can know it only if God has revealed it in the Holy Scriptures, since that is where His revelation of His will to us is to be found. Sola Scriptura!

I might rest my case here, since Thomas Aquinas is certainly earlier than Martin Luther. However, there are Roman Catholics who do not find Aquinas to their liking, and some of them might be tempted to say that they have always suspected Thomas of being a Protestant at heart, and that all I have shown is that the Lutheran heresy was already at work a few centuries before Luther himself arrived on the scene. Accordingly, I present a few quotations from Christian writers of an earlier period, to show that the view known as Sola Scriptura is very early and widespread indeed. An asterisk by a name as printed below marks the writer as a Universal Doctor (more or less the theological equivalent of a Nobel Prize winner).

I confess that I have not gathered these quotations myself, but have relied on the work of others.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (130-202)

We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith. (Adv. H. 3:1)
Read more diligently that gospel which is given to us by the apostles; and read more diligently the prophets, and you will find every action and the whole doctrine of our Lord preached in them. (Adv. H. 4:66)

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (150?-213?)
They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. (Stromata 7:16:3)

ORIGEN (185?-252)

In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge may be understood out of them. But if anything remain which the Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remains we must commit to the fire, that is, we will reserve it for God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things. (Orig. in Lev., hom. 5, 9:6)
We know Jesus Christ is God, and we seek to expound the words which are spoken, according to the dignity of the person. Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony; for our meanings and enarrations, without these witnesses, have no credibility. (Tractatus 5 in Matt.)
No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures. (Tract. 26 in Matt.)
As all gold, whatsoever it be, that is without the temple, is not holy; even so every notion which is without the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not holy, because it is foreign to Scripture. (Hom. 25 in Matt.)
Consider how imminent their danger is who neglect to study the Scriptures, in which alone the discernment of this can be ascertained. (in Rom. 10:16)

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (200?-258)

Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written. ... If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed. (Ep. 74 ad Pompeium)

HIPPOLYTUS ( -230?)

There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Holy Scriptures. For as he that would possess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise obtain it than to read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever of us will exercise piety toward God cannot learn this elsewhere but out of the Holy Scriptures. Whatsoever, therefore, the Holy Scriptures do preach, that let us know, and whatsoever they teach, that let us understand. (Hip. tom. 3, Bibliotheque Patrium, ed. Colonna)

ST. ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA* (300?-375)

The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)
The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written. (Exhort. ad Monachas)

ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN* (340?-396)

How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures? (Ambr. Offic., 1:23)
I read that he is the first, I read that he is not the second; they who say he is the second, let them show it by reading. (Ambr. Offic., in Virginis Instit. 11)

ST. HILARY OF POITIERS (315-367)

O emperor! I admire your faith, which desires only according to those things that were written. ... You seek the faith, O emperor. Hear it then, not from new writings, but from the books of God. Remember that it is not a question of philosophy, but a doctrine of the gospel. (Ad Constant. Augus. 2:8:2)

ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (330?-395)

Let a man be persuaded of the truth of that alone which has the seal of the written testimony. (De Anima et Resurrectione, 1)

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (315?-386)

Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures. (Cat. 4)

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF ANTIOCH AND BYZANTIUM* (347-407)

[The Scripture], like a safe door, denies an entrance to heretics, guarding us in safety in all things we desire, and not permitting us to be deceived. ...Whoever uses not the Scriptures, but comes in otherwise, that is, cuts out for himself a different and unlawful way, the same is a thief. (Homily 59, in Joh. 2:8)
Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true church, but at present there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ but by the Scriptures alone. And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it amid so great resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures.
The man of God could not be perfect without the Scriptures. [Paul says to Timothy:] “You have the Scriptures: if you desire to learn anything, you may learn it from them.” But if he writes these things to Timothy, who was filled with the Holy Spirit, how much more must we think these things spoken to us. (Hom. 9 in 2 Tim. 1:9)
It is absurd, while we will not trust other people in pecuniary affairs, but choose to reckon and calculate for ourselves, that in matters of far higher consequence we should implicitly follow the opinions of others, especially as we possess the most exact and perfect rule and standard by which to regulate our several inquiries: I mean the regulation of the divine laws. I, therefore, could wish that all of you would reject what this or that man says, and that you would investigate all these things in the Scriptures. (Hom. 13, 4:10 ad fin. in 2 Cor.)

THEOPHILUS OF ALEXANDRIA ( -412)

It is the part of a devilish spirit to think any thing to be divine that is not in the authority of the Holy Scriptures. (Ep. Pasch. 2)

ST. JEROME* (342?-420)

The church of Christ, possessing churches in all the world, is united by the unity of the Spirit, and has the cities of the law, the prophets, the gospels, and the apostles. She has not gone forth from her boundaries, that is, from the Holy Scriptures. (Comm. in Micha. 1:1)
Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites. (ad Aggai 1)
As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it. (Adv. Helvidium)

ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO* (354-430)

In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)
Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)
All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence. (Ep. 42)
Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write. (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult.)
Let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their church if they can, not by the talk and rumor of the Africans; not by the councils of their own bishops; not by the books of their disputers; not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the word of God, but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the verses of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, in the preaching and works of the evangelists; that is, in all canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. (De Unit. Eccl. 16)

ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (380?-444)

That which the Holy Scriptures have not said, by what means should we receive and account it among those things that are true? (Glaphyrarum in Gen. 2)

THEODORET OF CYRRHUS (393?-458?)

By the Holy Scriptures alone am I persuaded. (Dial. 1, Atrept.)
I am not so bold as to affirm anything which the sacred Scripture passes in silence. (Dial. 2, Asynchyt.)
We ought not to seek those things that are passed in silence, but rest in the things which are written. (in Gen. Q. 45)

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS (675?-749?)

We receive and acknowledge and reverence all things which are delivered in the law, the prophets, the apostles and evangelists, and we seek after nothing beyond these. (de Fid. Ortho. 1:1:1)

CONCLUSION: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, far from being an invention of Martin Luther, is taken for granted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and is a point agreed upon by the writers of the patristic age.

So where do you think the Church went off the tracks?

That is easy. Show me in Scripture where,

1. NT pastors treated the Eucharist as the body of Christ, transubstantiated thru them.

2. The apostles preached receiving the Eucharist as the means by which one received life in themselves, without receiving which one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54).

3. The Holy Spirit distinctively titled NT pastors "priests" (hiereus). (Do not try to argue it comes from presbuteros,as it does not , except by way of unique imposed functional equivalence.)

4. The that differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) and also made distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7)

5. Clerical celibacy is required (with rare exceptions), and which presumes all such have that gift.

6. A separate class of believers called “saints.”

7. Infants (not by conjecture) were sprinkled to become regenerate, and thus formally justified, having personally fulfilled the stated requirements for baptism.

8. The apostolic gospel of salvation began with becoming good enough inside thru regeneration (via baptism) to be declared just, sometimes in recognition of proxy faith, and usually ended with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory commencing at death.

9. It is not characteristic of Holy Spirit to reveal notable aspects of its significant subjects, from long life, to escaping death or being bodily assumed to God, to extra toes, to unique diets, to being sinless, etc., so that it should be expected He would mention a women was sinless and a perpetual virgin and who was bodily assumed to Heaven.

10. Mary was preserved sinless, and lived in perpetual virginity, contrary to the normal description of marriage, as leave and cleave.

11 . Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven

12. Mary was crowned as Queen of Heaven, and able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to her, or that any saint in Heaven was.

13. Anyone in Scripture except pagans prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven)

14. NT believers went to purgatory to suffer commencing at death in order to enter Heaven, versus their postmortem location of the saints being with the Lord.

15. A perpetual assuredly infallible (if conditionally) magisterium is promised.

16. An assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and assurance of faith.

17. In Acts and epistles Peter is confirmed to be the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself, and then upon the apostles (plural) and prophets.

18. NT churches are directed to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, or did so, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the supreme or last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

19.There is any apostolic successors (like for James) named besides for Judas to maintain the original 12 (by casting lots no less).

20. The NT supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

21. A church that taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an unknown god) is the same as theirs.

I could go on, or we could then go on about historical proof that the NT church saw Peter as the bishop of Rome over all Christians, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

Did what the Church at Ephesus believe differ from what St. Paul did at Troas where “On the first day of week, when we gathered together to Break Bread.” (Acts 20:7) and then again “Break Bread” (Acts 20:11) is consistent with Christians in the NT gathering on Sunday to celebrate a Rite, a Eucharist, a Sacramental Meal, etc.

That is purely extrapolation from texts that simply subscribe the common communal meal, to break bread, that's all it describes, not a priest officiating and turning bread and wine into the actual body of the Lord and dispensing to the brethren. Where do you ever see pastors doing so? They simply came together to break break, not priests dispensing something else under the appearance of bread.

Do you really think the Holy Spirit would fail to show this, and make it clear priests changed the elements into the body and blood of the Lord, when this is the height of Catholic worship and necessary for eternal life? That would not be any less a problem or expected than descriptions of men ordaining others as ministers of the gospel.

Moreover, the Bible does not say a blessing of the bread was what took place anywhere (check the Greek), but that they gave thanks, as what is to be blessed is the Lord: Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: (Psalms 103:2)

Thus Holy Spirit also describes that Paul "took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat" (Acts 27:35)

And all food "is sanctified by the word of God and prayer," (1 Timothy 4:5) but which is never changed into flesh and blood.

See here for extensive examination of arguments that attempt to make the gospels teach this absurdity.

And here on Jn. 6.

It is Acts and the epistles that interpret the gospels, and in the only place in which the Lord's supper is manifestly described as being that (1Cor. 11:19ff ) - which lack of mention is incongruous if it had the life giving importance Rome ascribes it - then the focus is not on the nature of the elements, which as in "breaking bread," is only described as "bread," but on the church being the body of Christ, which unity was not being recognize by some going ahead to eat while others were hungry, shaming them that have not, utterly contrary to showing the Lord's unselfish death for the church, which they were supposed to be commemorating by their communal meal.

[Luke 24: 28-35] where Christ took bread and Blessed it and Broke it and...their eyes were opened...and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the Bread”

Indeed, and consistent with "the Words that I speak unto you, are Spirit, and are life," (Jn. 6:63) it was as He "opened to us the scriptures" that their heart burned within them, and thus "opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:32,45) And which included more than apostles by the way.

The Lord likewise also communed with Abraham in a meal in Gn. 18, and Moses and the 70 elders of Israel "saw" God as they ate and drank, (Ex. 24:9-11) but this did not mean or require that they literally physically consumed God, nor is that how anyone obtained spiritual life in them.

at An Apostle is One who is “Sent”...Two statements are important notes Pope Benedict (p .273) that link Christ and the Apostles mission are “anyone who rejects you rejects me….and rejects the one who sent me” (c.f., Lk 10:16; Mt 10:40).

So what makes what Pope Benedict's comments more weighty than other papal teaching which RCs dismiss as not infallible when it fails to support them? He also says “Co-redemptrix departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings”

And here if Lk 10 and "anyone who rejects you rejects me" makes those who are sent to be apostles, then you do not have 12 apostles, but 70! And indeed the whole church. (Acts 8:4)

In St. John’s Gospel, we read “As the Father sent me, I send you” (cf. John 20:21).

And which more than just the apostles were present. (LK. 24)

Acts 11 thru 13 shows St. Paul and Barnabas’s missionary activity was connected to the Apostles “they sent Barnabas to go to Antioch” (cf Acts 11:22); Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul….then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off” (cf Acts 13:2-3.

Actually, to upset the functional divisions, in Acts 13 it was "certain prophets and teachers" as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, who laid hands on Paul and Barnabas, and sent them. And it was a "certain disciple" that baptized and laid hands on Paul. Who was not ordained by apostles in order to become one. (Acts 9)

As we read St. Paul’ Letters, we see him develop a strong theology of Apostleship in 2 Corinthians. As Pope Benedict, notes, 2 Cor 5:20-22 illustrates this where St. Paul states “we are ambassadors for Christ as it is as God is appealing through us”. Which further reveals the wanton wresting of Scripture to support traditions of men. 2 Cor 5:20-22 does not simply refer to apostles, any more than "in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven (2 Corinthians 5:2) does.

In context, those given "the ministry of reconciliation" as all new creatures :

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; (2 Corinthians 5:17-18)

The Son of God, Jesus Christ, was preached among them by Paul, and Silvanus and Timotheus, (2 Corinthians 1:19) and Paul as one of many ministers who were not all apostle is appealing to the Corinthians who themselves are called to be ministers of reconciliation. But the elitism of Rome extends to the ostentatious titles and garb and pomp and ceremony of her ministers, contrary to Christ. (Mt. 23)

Pope Benedict notes that in St. Paul’s farewell address to the Church at Ephesus (cf. Acts 20:18-35, which you sited), we see an already developed theology of Apostolic Succession and thus the office of presbyter is now linked to Apostle but it is the Holy Spirit who instituted the priesthood (Acts 20:28)

These repeated type of extrapolative assertions are what wears my patience thin. There simply is no mention made of successors to apostles as a distinct class titled "priests," or a distinction made btwn presbyters (presbuteros=elder) and overseers (episkopos), for what they refer to the same office, the presbyter being the kind of person that is fit to be an overseers

Thus what the referenced wrested text says is that Paul (not a pope) called the elders (presbuteros) of the church together, (Acts 20:17) and told them,

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers/bishops (episkopos), to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Act 20:28)

a distinction is made between Bishop and Presbyter as it is the “overseer” who installs “presbyters” (cf. Acts 6:6; 2 Tim 1:6) and we see ST. Paul directing Titus to “appoint Presbyters in every town” (cf. Titus 1:5)

More wresting of Scripture to support clerical distinctions and titles the Holy Spirit does not show. The fact is that Acts 6:6 is not even referring to installing presbyters/elders, but deacons! And 2 Tim 1:6 does not have an overseers/bishops ordaining a presbyter/elder, as in fact Timothy was gifted by "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." (1Tim. 4:14) Peter himself refers to himself as a presbyter/elder! (1Pt. 5:1)

As for 1Tim 1:5, once again rather than overseers/bishops ordaining presbyter/elders, this simply shows presbyter/elders are those who occupy the office of overseers/bishops, for those whom Titus, who like Peter is an presbyter, is to ordain as "elders in every city," are themselves overseers/bishops: "For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God..." (Titus 1:7)

Any division is shown to be simply artificial, and the fact that Benedict engages in such misappropriation of texts to support a tradition of men shows how much this deception goes on.

the transfer of responsibility from ST. Paul to Titus and Timothy is an example of the formulation of the concept of Apostolic Succession.

Really? All that is being done is ordaining overseers/bishops as presbyters/elders, which is not unique to Rome, but which does not make them apostles or a distinctive class of clergy titled priests. See this FR post for on that.

Pope Benedict notes that the linkage between Apostle and Presbyter (cf. 1 Pet 5: 1-4) ...thus the shows in practice a transfer of the theology of Apostle to presbyter

Which is contrary to a separate class of clergy called overseers/bishops versus presbyters/elders presbyter, and simply supports ordaining pastors/Shepherds. An apostle was an overseer/presbyter, but the latter is not necessarily the former, and none were titled "priests." All believers make up the only priesthood in the NT. (1Pt. 2:5,9)

Do we believe after the death of the last Apostle, lets say St. John around 90AD that the Church went off the rail and the Church was left an orphan.

That is simply what is known as a false dilemma, as rejecting the Roman idea of apostolic successors and its hierarchical distinctions beyond overseers/presbyters and deacons, does not leave the church an orphan, as Paul charged overseers/presbyters with the care of the church. (Acts 20:28) But the developing elitist Roman church left many orphans outside the kingdom of God, that apostolic preaching could have gained.

we see the Church Fathers and the Church of Rome exercising a Primacy in the early Church.

Which elitism and papacy began what is still a problem, resulting in the unScriptural incessant promotion of a particular church, as seen even here.

Yet "If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (Jesuit Father theologian, and professor of church history Klaus Schatz, in “Papal Primacy,” p. 3)

Oh, the old lets quote Church Fathers who are sola Scrptura believers. And like you, these were taken from several Catholic Sites who had them in various files. The same Fathers who express a reverence for the Scriptures [Surprise, surprise, surprise, as if they would not] also revere Tradition and the Church that canonized those scriptures and defended orthodoxy from heretics.

Again, as J. Pelikan observed, correctly, in hiw work the Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600AD), there was no notion of Sola Scriptura nor was their a notion of Sola Tradition. Thus, it was both. Scripture and Tradition booth understood as complimentary modes by the Church to determine orthodox Doctrine. I am arguing for neither Sola Scriptura nor I am claiming Sola Tradition.

ST Papias:

“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
For the record, the St. Papias above is the earliest written evidence of attaching Mark and Matthew to those Two Gospels.

Eusebius of Caesarea

“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).

Saint Irenaeus

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
.”It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

Saint Clement of Alexandria

“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

Saint Cyprian of Carthage

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).

Saint Athanasius

“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).

Saint Basil the Great

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

Saint Epiphanius of Salamis

“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

Saint Augustine

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

Saint John Chrysostom

“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

Saint Vincent of Lerins

“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.
“I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .

“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).

Pope Agatho

“[T]he holy Church of God . . . has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error, [and possesses that faith that] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the apostolic tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls” (Letter read at fourth session of III Constantinople [A.D. 680]).

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.