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.”

And on Saint Thomas Aquinas, if you think he taught the protestant heresy of Sola Scriptura:

“On the contrary, The universal Church cannot err, since she is governed by the Holy Ghost, Who is the Spirit of truth: for such was Our Lord’s promise to His disciples (John 16:13): “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth.” Now the symbol is published by the authority of the universal Church. Therefore it contains nothing defective.” [Summa Theologica, II-II, 1, 9]

and again he writes:

“The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thessalonians 2:14): “Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word”—that is by word of mouth—”or by our epistle”—that is by word put into writing.[Summa Theologica, III, 25, 3 ad 4]

The Angelic Doctor also wrote:

“Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith...........Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will.............. Faith adheres to all the articles of faith by reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth proposed to us in Scriptures, according to the teaching of the Church who has the right understanding of them. Hence whoever abandons this mean is altogether lacking in faith. (Summa, Pt. II-II, Question 5, Art. 3).

So the claim Saint Thomas Aquinas was Luther is false. Aquinas was a great Theologian, among the best, and is 1 of 30 something [I forget the number] Doctors of the Church. I attended primary and Junior high school run by the Dominicans and have great admiration for the Dominican Tradition and he always put himself in service of the Church, not above it.

That Aquinas had a great love of Scripture. No surprise. He also had a great love of the Eucharist and wrote many of the Great Eucharistic Hyms Tantum ergo, Pangia Lingua, etc. He also was one the major theologians on providing the Theological/Philosophical definition of Transubstantiation as it related to the Holy Eucharist.

If you are implying that he was crypto Lutheran, that is laughable.

Ok, let me be more specific and too the point. Are you

1)Lutheran
2)Calvinist-Reformed or some related to Calvin like the Presbyterians’.
3)Pentecostal of some stripe
4)Baptist of some stripe, Free Will, Missionary, Independent, Reformed, Southern, etc.
5)Joel Osteen Health and Welfare Mega Church Protestant type, etc.

Or if there is one that does not fit into the categories above that I have missed?

Does that make my question clear enough. Again, in the spirit of transparency, I make no bones, I am a Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome, where Pope Francis currently presides in Charity [to quote St. Ignatius of Antioch and his Letter to the Romans in 107AD circa]. It is very easy for anyone to know what I believe as the Official Catechism of the Catholic Church can be obtained and read on-line [So the Catholic Church does not hide what it professes, it is all there]. So what Protestant tradition do you belong to.

You keep citing all the NT but those Churches were in the Mediterranean Roman world, those people looked and were culturally more like me [I am 100% of Sicilian ancestry], St. Paul preached in my ancestral homeland [Sicily] and like St. Peter, was martyred in Rome Italy. So how is it that you think that your American form of Protestantism, in all its worship, church order, practice, prayer life, devotions, music, theological interpretation of scripture, no Creed or have a Creed [Some prots say the Creed, some do not], how are members brought into your Church [some baptize infants, some do not, some baptize in the Trinity, many Pentecostals, for example, do not], heck, I can go on, and on, till the New years kicks in, but I do want to watch some football with my father tomorrow

So again, to summarize, what American Evangelical Protestant tradition do you go to Church in?

moreperfect:

A serious and fair discussion would involve both parties being transparent. I still, after all these years, do not know which type of Protestant you are. I pinged Gamecock in this thread out of courtesy and respect because he and I have had discussions before and he was honest and open enough to indicate that he was I think, a Baptist with some Reformed theological heritage [I think that is accurate and he can correct me if I am wrong]. So at least when I was having a discussion with Gamecock, I new the theological foundations from which he was making his points.

I don’t know anything other than you are against Catholicism. Fine. but again, you did not come up with your theological world view in a vacuum. There has to be some theological tradition from which you have as a starting point.

So I will be honest, I have been here years and many of the FR Prots will jump in together in a thread and I can detect that many of these same Protestants have world views on some issues that are world apart yet when there is a Catholic, they all jump in and ping the manure out of me and I have no idea if one is Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal, or any variation of those traditions, etc.

Since that is a simple question, my point is this. The notion of Sola Scriptura is false. It was not a belief of the Early Church nor can you find it in the NT.

Who know what your idea of Sola Scriptura is, but what i hold and can substantiate is that it is abundantly evidenced that in Scripture we see that as written, Scripture became the assured Word of God and the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.

Under the Roman Catholic model, despite your idealism, the Roman magisterium is the supreme authority which defines what Scripture is and means, and those is rejects are to be rejected, under the premise that she is the steward of Scripture.

But which is not what Scripture teaches, as instead the church began in dissent from those who were the stewards of Scripture, following a holy man in the desert who are insects, and an Itinerant Preacher, both of whom were rejected by the magisterium. Whom the Lord reproved by Scripture, and established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

So my point is when someone today says I read the Bible and I deduce that it means 1 and someone says oh I think is means 2 and the Church’s Faith says no, it is not 1 or 2 because the Church’s Faith is, for the sake of argument, 3. Then you have a problem.

Indeed you have a problem. The magisterium says Jesus did not have valid authority, and thus you must obey it, while those who believed Scriptural substantiation followed Him and thus the church began, but not one under the premise of the magisterium having assured veracity as the supreme authority over Scripture.

The magisterium says Mary was sinless, a perpetual virgin, and bodily assumed into Heaven, and we are to pray to her, but none which the Scripture teaches about Mary. But you must obey it, and are not to engage in objective examination as to ascertain the veracity of Rome's official teaching. Thus you are like a cult.

As Pelikan notes ... what did not fluctuate was Doctrine...

Which can be good or bad, good as holding to Scriptural truths, bad as in perpetuating extraScriptural traditions as doctrine.

Pelikan continues and notes that the notion of sola scriptura is not found in the anti-Nicene Church, but neither was there Sola Tradition.

Which was a problem, and since you invoke Pelikan then why not give him the same weight when he says (in "The Riddle of Roman Catholicism"),

"Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity..."

“The reformers were catholic because they were spokesmen for an evangelical tradition in medieval catholicism, what Luther called "the succession of the faithful." The fountainhead of that tradition was Augustine (d. 430). His complex and far-reaching system of thought incorporated the catholic ideal of identity plus universality, and by its emphasis upon sin and grace it became the ancestor of Reformation theology. … All the reformers relied heavily upon Augustine. They pitted his evangelical theology against the authority of later church fathers and scholastics, and they used him to prove that they were not introducing novelties into the church, but defending the true faith of the church.”

“...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.

“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. (Pelikan, pp. 46-47).

"Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable" (Pelikan 48-49).

No wonder that no less an authority than Manning, when faced with appeal to antiquity, states,

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

He does not deny Rome has antiquity, but it is what she says it is, regardless of counter claims by the Orthodox or whoever. Which is contrary to your minimization of the magisterium and rosy picture of Catholicism.

so palpable was this apostolic tradition...

That depends upon what is meant. We pass on Scriptural truths, and would continue to do so even if all the Bible's were confiscated. But the problem is that when something assumes a higher authority an Scripture, so that doctrines such as seen in Mariology can be binding, but which are not based upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, but upon the authority of the church.

And again Roman Catholics arguments from tradition to argue in favor of things the EOs reject

So my logic is I believe Christ founded a Church and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles...

But by making the church itself the supreme authority so that extraScriptural traditions can be taught as doctrines, then you assume am assured veracity and power that you do not possess, and which presumption the church began in dissent from.

“Ok, let me be more specific and too the point. Are you

Or if there is one that does not fit into the categories above that I have missed?”

...................................

Love it! No not a member of those listed groups. Were you thinking I was here representing the beliefs of a particular denomination? I am not. I am here to talk about Biblical Christianity. If you feel a need to pigeonhole me as the basis of a conversation, I’m afraid you will be disappointed. I clearly identified the only church that counts as the one I’ve been baptized into by the Holy Spirit. I’ve clearly communicated to you that I believe in the inspiration and authority of God’s inspired Word. That is the single basis that means anything in evaluating Christian Truth. If you do not wish to discuss truth as revealed in Scripture, I will not force you. That is why I am here. It is also why I’ve not accepted your rabbit trails that diverge from that discussion.

“You keep citing all the NT but those Churches were in the Mediterranean Roman world, those people looked and were culturally more like me [I am 100% of Sicilian ancestry]”

I mentioned earlier that I am half Sicilian. Church membership is not based on race, thankfully.

“St. Paul preached in my ancestral homeland [Sicily]”

Coincidence! Mine too!

“So how is it that you think that your American form of Protestantism, in all its worship, church order, practice, prayer life, devotions, music, theological interpretation of scripture, no Creed or have a Creed [Some prots say the Creed, some do not], how are members brought into your Church [some baptize infants, some do not, some baptize in the Trinity, many Pentecostals, for example, do not], heck, I can go on, and on, till the New years kicks in, but I do want to watch some football with my father tomorrow”

OK, you lost me in that run on sentence that never seemed to resolve into a question. Perhaps something got cut out?

“So again, to summarize, what American Evangelical Protestant tradition do you go to Church in?”

Big assumption there!

“A serious and fair discussion would involve both parties being transparent. I still, after all these years, do not know which type of Protestant you are. I pinged Gamecock in this thread out of courtesy and respect because he and I have had discussions before and he was honest and open enough to indicate that he was I think, a Baptist with some Reformed theological heritage [I think that is accurate and he can correct me if I am wrong]. So at least when I was having a discussion with Gamecock, I new the theological foundations from which he was making his points.”

If you read what I write, you will know exactly what I believe. I am not hiding anything I believe. If it brings you comfort, you can always ask what I believe about a particular topic. I will do my best to answer, if it is in any way relevant.

“I don’t know anything other than you are against Catholicism. Fine. but again, you did not come up with your theological world view in a vacuum. There has to be some theological tradition from which you have as a starting point.”

I am certainly not against every Catholic teaching. Just the ones made up out of thin air, the ones that are pagan in origin and they ones that do not pass the test of Scripture. Everything else I am supportive of. So we have some things in common.

“So I will be honest, I have been here years and many of the FR Prots will jump in together in a thread and I can detect that many of these same Protestants have world views on some issues that are world apart yet when there is a Catholic, they all jump in and ping the manure out of me and I have no idea if one is Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal, or any variation of those traditions, etc.”

I haven’t pinged anyone. I don’t blame you for not liking dealing with that scenario. I think the best thing to do in that case is ignore those you weren’t in a conversation with. I often experience a similar thing. I respond to one poster and they don’t respond to prove their position, but three others jump in who I wasn’t talking with.

“Fine. but again, you did not come up with your theological world view in a vacuum.”

For background, I was born into a RC family, served as an alter boy. Was never molested. Began to read the Scriptures for the first time in my life my freshman year in college. Came to faith in Christ through the Word of God. The next 15 years were a time of slow growth and solidifying what I learned. I eventually went to Seminary, where I read thousands and thousands of pages of Church History, as I mentioned up thread.

The most valuable thing I was required to do was outline every book of the Bible and then make a chart of every single book. With that foundation and a continuation of exposition of every book, I also spent hundreds of hours on the development of Christian doctrine from the beginning through our age. I should add I spent a year and a half in translation of the NT also, which taught me several valuable lessons about theology.

After I graduated, I spent the next decade thinking through all I was exposed to, all I learned and putting it together - and frankly, rejecting what I came to believe was not accurate. I don’t know everything. No one does. No one has to for any reason.

I do know what I believe. I know the basis upon what I believe it. I know what areas are my opinions, my beliefs and my convictions. I intend to keep learning based on that foundation.

Since you asked, that is where I am coming from.

“If you read what I write, you will know exactly what I believe. I am not hiding anything I believe. If it brings you comfort, you can always ask what I believe about a particular topic. I will do my best to answer, if it is in any way relevant”

Well thanks for the response. I still don’t know what Church you belong to, despite your post here.

“I am certainly not against every Catholic teaching. Just the ones made up out of thin air, the ones that are pagan in origin and they ones that do not pass the test of Scripture. Everything else I am supportive of. So we have some things in common.”

Not sure what you mean in the context of pagan. In another thread, I mentioned that St. Paul quoted from pagan Greeks in 3 places. He was quoted in Acts 17:28 “In Him we live, move and have our being” which is a quote from Epimendes. He also quotes the Greek poet Menander in 1 Cor 15:33 and in Titus 1:12 he again quotes from Epimendes. Now, in 3 places St. Paul has quoted from Pagan Greek Poets. Of this, Saint Thomas Aquinas writes “One who is learned in Sacred Scriptures accepts truth wherever he finds it. This is why Paul, on several occasions, refers to the sayings of pagans. It does not follow that all of their teaching is approved, but what is good is drawn out and retained. For Truth comes from the Holy Spirit no matter who speaks it [Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on 1 Titus]. In this vain, Thomas was comfortable taking the truths he found in Aristotle and using them for the development of Theology just as Augustine had done the same with Plato [now there are some here that do not like the use of Greek Philosophy to help theology, but it is clear that both Augustine and Aquinas did so, which is consistent with Aquinas thoughts in is Commentary on Pauls 1st Letter to Titus.

This goes in line with what Pope John Paul II said in Faith and Reason and this conflict thesis that atheist charge the Catholic Church as being against Science [that is a whole different debate, but I can cite some of the great scientist who were Catholic Priests, St. Albert Magnus, Dun Scotus, Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Fr. Lemaitre, the Cosmologist and forerunner of the Bing Bang theory]. To sum, Pope John Paul, in his Papal Letter “Faith and Reason” [that which science shows] have their same foundation and source in the one True God. Since God can’t contradict himself, Truth from faith and science can’t be in contradiction [we human may have a hard time reconciling them 100% in our head] if God is TRUTH [and he is] then Truths of Faith and Truths of Science are both from the source of TRUTH [God].

“I haven’t pinged anyone. I don’t blame you for not liking dealing with that scenario. I think the best thing to do in that case is ignore those you weren’t in a conversation with. I often experience a similar thing. I respond to one poster and they don’t respond to prove their position, but three others jump in who I wasn’t talking with.”

Correct, and on this point you have demonstrated decorum and behaved like a proper Gentleman so my “snarky comments” were not directed, or more accurately, should not have been directed at you. I was frustrated with the ping fest from some of the other posters who chime in and hijack a thread and take it to where they want it as opposed to where two posters have the taken their take or perspective on the thread.

redleghunter:

St. Polycarp is a good guy to read. Have read him. St. Ignatius of Antioch, a pupil of Polycarp, is also a good one to read. Of Polycarp and the canon, he does quote from 17 of the 27 NT books. In addition, he also quotes from the book of Tobit chapter 4:10 and 12:9 when he states “when you do good, defer it not, as alms delivers you from death” I did look over at your link but does it also point that point out as well. Still, you can’t construct the 27 NT from St. Polycarp, you can show which works and scriptural passages he used to make his arguments against the un-orthodox of his time. According to St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp called Marcion, the leading Gnostic of that era, the firstborn of Satan.

This Marcion, would call for the Church to accept only Luke’s Gospel, Acts and I think 10 of Pauls Letters and throw out the OT entirely [The LXX version was the one being used, hence Polycarps use of Tobit]. Marcion, was excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome in 144AD and his theology [wrong one] provided the Church with the need to more formally define the NT canon. By 180-190 AD, we have the Muratorian Fragment which describes the approved writings that could be read in the “Church’s Liturgy” [key criteria for Canonicity was could it be read in the Liturgy]. It is hard to define how many of the 27 are defined by the Church of Rome in time of the Fragment but most scholars I have read say it is at most 22 of the 27. Close to the final 27, but not quite there yet.

with respect to Tobit, the Catholic and Orthodox Church would provide further definition on the meaning of Tobit in the life of the Church and St. Polycarp’ writing but as I think you are aware of , Alms, prayer and fasting were all part of the Discipline of Lent, which of course we also have early evidence of in the writings of St. Ireneaus in circa 180AD when he was debating the Date of the celebration of Easter and documenting Pope Victor’s arguments with some of the Church’s in the East over the celebration of the said date of Easter [Pascha using the classical word derived from Latin]

amoreperfectunion:

“For background, I was born into a RC family, served as an alter boy. Was never molested. Began to read the Scriptures for the first time in my life my freshman year in college. Came to faith in Christ through the Word of God. The next 15 years were a time of slow growth and solidifying what I learned. I eventually went to Seminary, where I read thousands and thousands of pages of Church History, as I mentioned up thread.

I do know what I believe. I know the basis upon what I believe it. I know what areas are my opinions, my beliefs and my convictions. I intend to keep learning based on that foundation.

Since you asked, that is where I am coming from”

Fair enough. But one additional question based on what you wrote above, who was the Seminary you attended being run by. There has to be some Church which ran the Seminary or maybe more accurately, which the seminary was affiliated with. Would you be willing to disclose who that seminary was affiliated with [note, not asking the name of the seminary, that can, I understand, get into too much personal information and I would hesitate to post that info myself, but of course, I am paranoid to some degree genetically given my Sicilian heritage!!!!]

redleghunter:

With respect to Luke 24:28-35, he is St. Thomas Aquinas’s Patristic Commentary of Luke, which takes the Church Fathers and their commentaries on that passage. The commentary is detailed and their are numerous linkages to the Breaking of the Bread to the Sacrament of the Eucharist

http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea/Luke_24:25-35

In Saint John’s Gospel, we see another account of Christ Breaking Bread and his revelation being made in the context of “Breaking Bread” [John 21:14]. Again, from Saint Thomas Aquinas Patristic Commentary on the St. John’s Gospel, there are again linkages of this Gospel account to the Sacrament of the Eucharist

http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/catena-aurea/John_21:12-14

So to say that there is no connection to the Eucharist and “Breaking of the Bread” is not correct, at least from the Catholic Theological Tradition which uses the Theological writings and biblical commentaries from the Fathers to help it confirm, define, and defend “Doctrine”

I think a clear reading of all of these commentaries of the Fathers, which were brought together in Aquinas’s Commentary of the Gospels does show a consistent biblical exegetical tradition of these passages having some connection to the Sacrament of Christ Body and Blood [Eucharist]

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.