I Hated the Idea of Becoming Catholic

It was the day after Ash Wednesday in 2012 when I called my mom from my dorm room at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and told her I thought I was going to become Catholic.

“You’re not going to become Catholic, you just know you’re not Southern Baptist,” she said.

“No, I don’t think so.”

A pause. “Oh boy,” she sighed.

I started crying.

I cannot stress enough how much I hated the idea of becoming Catholic. I was bargaining to the last moment. I submitted a sermon for a competition days before withdrawing from school. I was memorizing Psalm 119 to convince myself of sola scriptura. I set up meetings with professors to hear the best arguments. I purposefully read Protestant books about Catholicism, rather than books by Catholic authors.

Further, I knew I would lose my housing money and have to pay a scholarship back if I withdrew from school, not to mention disappointing family, friends, and a dedicated church community.

But when I attempted to do my homework, I collapsed on my bed. All I wanted to do was scream at the textbook, “Who says?!”

I had experienced a huge paradigm shift in my thinking about the faith, and the question of apostolic authority loomed larger than ever.

But let’s rewind back a few years.

I grew up in an evangelical Protestant home. My father was a worship and preaching pastor from when I was in fourth grade onwards. Midway through college, I really fell in love with Jesus Christ and His precious Gospel and decided to become a pastor.

It was during that time that I was hardened in my assumption that the Roman Catholic Church didn’t adhere to the Bible. When I asked one pastor friend of mine during my junior year why Catholics thought Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth when the Bible clearly said Jesus had “brothers,” he simply grimaced: “They don’t read the Bible.”

Though I had been in talks with Seattle’s Mars Hill Church about doing an internship with them, John Piper’s book Don’t Waste Your Life clarified my call to missionary work specifically, and I spent the next summer evangelizing Catholics in Poland.

So I was surprised when I visited my parents and found a silly looking book titled Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic on my father’s desk. What was my dad doing reading something like this? I was curious and hadn’t brought anything home to read, so I gave it a look.

David Currie’s memoir of leaving behind his evangelical education and ministries was bothersome. His unapologetic defense of controversial doctrines regarding Mary and the papacy were most shocking, as I had never seriously considered that Catholics would have sensible, scriptural defenses to these beliefs.

The book’s presence on my father’s desk was explained more fully a few months later when he called me and said he was returning to the Catholicism of his youth. My response? “But, can’t you just be Lutheran or something?” I felt angry, betrayed, and indignant. For the next four months I served as a youth pastor at my local church and, in my free time, read up on why Catholicism was wrong.

During that time, I stumbled across a Christianity Today article that depicted an “evangelical identity crisis.” The author painted a picture of young evangelicals, growing up in a post-modern world, yearning to be firmly rooted in history and encouraged that others had stood strong for Christ in changing and troubled times. Yet, in my experience, most evangelical churches did not observe the liturgical calendar, the Apostles’ Creed was never mentioned, many of the songs were written after 1997, and if any anecdotal story was told about a hero from church history, it was certainly from after the Reformation. Most of Christian history was nowhere to be found.

For the first time, I panicked. I found a copy of the Catechism and started leafing through it, finding the most controversial doctrines and laughing at the silliness of the Catholic Church. Indulgences? Papal infallibility? These things, so obviously wrong, reassured me in my Protestantism. The Mass sounded beautiful and the idea of a visible, unified Church was appealing - but at the expense of the Gospel? It seemed obvious that Satan would build a large organization that would lead so many just short of heaven.

I shook off most of the doubts and enjoyed the remainder of my time at college, having fun with the youth group and sharing my faith with the students. Any lingering doubts, I assumed, would be dealt with in seminary.

I started my classes in January with the excitement of a die-hard football fan going to the Super Bowl. The classes were fantastic and I thought I had finally rid myself of any Catholic problems.

"Believing in Jesus means believing everything Jesus taught, not just selected fractions of it, then discarding the rest, pretending Jesus really didn't mean what He said."

"Yes, I agree, which is precisely why I could never be Roman Catholic. They leave things out that ought to be left in, and add things in that ought to be left out, and sometimes they do both at the same time, which is quite a trick. For example, in John 6, RC teaching throws under the bus the simple and direct spiritual teaching of Jesus, presented by a food metaphor, that believing in Him results in eternal life, and this despite the fact that Jesus takes great pains to explicitly underline that the teaching was spiritual and not corporeal in nature, just like the rest of His teaching in parables and metaphors. Then once the core teaching on heart belief in Jesus is ripped out, they can push into the text the much later novelty of transubstantiation, though never was such a thing taught by Jesus, nor the apostles, nor the earliest Christian writers, and which doctrine rather encourages people to worship made-made objects in defiance of God's most basic laws governing worship of Himself. Going half way with the teachings of Jesus is like going half way to dinner. Not very satisfying. Man shall live how? By every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

=============================================================

Wow, your post certainly demonstrates massive loads of chutzpah, that's for sure!

You say you believe in Jesus, but then you either completely throw out, or severely distort much of what God reveals in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, John 6, and 1 Corinthians 11, basically telling Jesus you believe in Him, except when you don't believe in Him, such as here, and here, and here, and here, and here..."

St. Paul's warning is aimed directly at people who believe/don't believe/believe/don't believe/believe/don't believe/ regarding what our dear Lord plainly taught about this important life-giving teaching, depending instead on what their own preconceived erroneous notions are.

✝============================================================✝

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

1 Corinthians 11:27-29

✝============================================================✝

When I see the scriptural contortions and distortions and twistings and misinterpretations, and the tap-dancing and shimmying around the truth that some people make themselves go through in order to try to dodge and avoid the plain biblical teachings about the Holy Eucharist instituted by God Himself, I find it both shocking and very saddening.

Man shall indeed live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, but man has to not just hear that word, but man also has to respond to that word. For example, when Jesus said to "Repent!", the hearers didn't just have to hear that word, but they also had to actually do something in response: repent.

Likewise, when Jesus tells us in so many different places in the Holy Scriptures that we are supposed to observe the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and precisely how we are supposed to observe that Sacrament, and what it truthfully involves (whether we understand it or not), He expects us to actually do something in response to His words, not just have warm and fuzzy thoughts and feelings about them.

(Believing in Jesus means believing (everything) Jesus taught, not just selected fractions of it, then discarding the rest, pretending Jesus really didn't mean what He said.)

Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."

=============================================================

Jesus sometimes spoke literally, and sometimes He spoke figuratively, or simply non-literally in some other way. We have to learn how to discern between when He was speaking literally, and when He was speaking figuratively, and when he was using such speaking tools as hyperbole, and other forms of speaking to make a point.

That is one of the reasons that Jesus began to build His Holy Spirit guided Church, in order to faithfully and authoritatively teach His unchanging truths, even before the first word in the New Testament was actually written.

Those who take that discerning task upon themselves apart from the "pillar and ground of the truth", often get their conflicting and contradictory interpretations completely wrong, and those are two good examples of that.

Jesus was not talking literally when discussing calling men "fathers", and He was talking literally when He spoke about the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist.

Let me give you some helpful sources to clearly and thoroughly explain why taking a literal view of "call no man father" really makes no sense.

Call No Man "Father"?
("http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no- man-father")

Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as "father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

In his tract 10 Reasons Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist anti-Catholic writer Donald Maconaghie quotes this passage as support for his charge that "the papacy is a hoax."

Bill Jackson, another Fundamentalist who runs a full-time anti-Catholic organization, says in his book Christian’s Guide To Roman Catholicism that a "study of Matthew 23:9 reveals that Jesus was talking about being called father as a title of religious superiority . . . [which is] the basis for the [Catholic] hierarchy" (53).

How should Catholics respond to such objections?

The Answer

To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father."

In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.

But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

A Change with the New Testament?

Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men "father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact, so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a misunderstanding of Christ’s words.

So What Did Jesus Mean?

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.

Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into "gurus" is worldwide.

This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.

He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.

The Apostles Show the Way

The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: "Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ" (1 Cor. 4:17); "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (1 Tim. 1:2); "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (2 Tim. 1:2).

He also referred to Timothy as his son: "This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare" (1 Tim 1:18); "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 2:1); "But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel" (Phil. 2:22).

Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior" (Titus 1:4); "I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment" (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

Spiritual Fatherhood

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests "father." Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.

Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).

All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.

Here are some more links to help you out there metmom.

"http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1y.htm" - "Call No Man Father"

"http://www.staycatholic.com/call_no_man_father.htm" - "Call No Man Father"

"http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/apologetics/father.htm" - "CATHOLIC TEACHINGS REGARDING CALL NO ONE 'FATHER'"

"http://www .askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2008_07JULY/2008JulyWhyPrayToMaryCallPriestsFather.cfm" - "AskACatholic.com"

"http://www.antiochian.org/node/19193" - "Call No Man Father?" - (Orthodox explanation for this question)

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I- sOgcUOt8E" - "Call No Man Father?" - (Jimmy Akin youtube explanation)

"http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#16" - "The Bible says to call no man Father, so why do we call our priests 'Father'?"

✝============================================================✝

What a load of blarney (quoted from: Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego) all carefully smoke-screened and spun to get to the place where it is imposed upon church members to; not only possibly look upon as spiritual fathers unto themselves the ones who are (allegedly) passing on what Christ revealed and taught to His own disciples --- compared to the One Father who is in Heaven --- who is the Only one whom can possibly ever sire ourselves into His realm --- but to be required even to call those persons "Father" --- thus still, regardless of all the painstaking excuse making Brom engaged in, in final result turns Matt. 23:8–10 if not on it's head, at least utterly sideways.

For clarity's sake, Matthew 23:8-10 again;

⁸ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,^[a] and you are all brethren. ⁹ Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. ¹⁰ And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 23:8 NU-Text omits the Christ.

Do not be called "Rabbi" for you are all brethren.

How then to call one whom is as a brother among brethren, all whom have hopefully(?) been born of the same Father, then also "father" --- of his own brothers?

Perhaps other birthing terms could be brought in to this mix, and compare the elder brethren to being like unto midwives, assisting in bringing about the initial re-birth, and then further raising up, strengthening and establishing in the faith those persons, illuminating further the depths of their own faith to those of whom as it was written in the last written sentence of Acts 2 -- And the Lord added to the church[h] daily those who were being saved.

Or course the texts do not say "midwives", but neither do they suggest that Christians (as those would later come to be known), of whatever standing within the Church --- go beyond or break the limitations of what the Christ is attributed to having said, seen in Matthew 23:8-10.

And though there is (and always was within the Church) the need for there to be teachers, and also that those whom were being taught to submit themselves to the teachings themselves, the solid support for view toward concepts of hierarchy are for Elders as elder brethren, for Christ said that you are all brethren, with it being He himself who was doing the teaching.

There also can be positions of deacon, (and elders, of course) presbyter and bishop, but not one bishop singularly in unilateral manner ranked over and above all others --- or as how today those of Rome would seem to prefer to have it, their own bishops and top bishop be either -- all that there is, or else if not, then those together in aggregate be collectively over all others, regardless of all other considerations.

I do understand how centuries later (if not even sooner?) men began to slide towards seeing themselves, as they served in role of "teacher", much as Christ Himself was teacher to his disciples, to then further take that type of *thinking* to further yet apply to what is called Eucharist --- with the so-called priests for a brief moment (in the course of the liturgy) making it out to be that they themselves were 'alter Christus'.

Compare that type of attitude or posturing towards others, with the Apostle Peter's own posture towards the centurion Cornelius, when that the man knelt to worship at Peter's feet Acts 10:25-26;

²⁵ As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. ²⁶ But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”

Then compare yet again with how a Roman Church prelate, Pope Gregory VII, near to the beginning of the 2nd millennia wrote that "all princes must kiss his feet".

Being as the Church of Rome asserts that Peter was the foremost Apostle, and that bishopric alone among any and all others upon earth is Peter's "chair", much as the Sanhedrin once occupied 'seat of Moses', then it is painfully clear that by time of Gregory VII there had been (theologically speaking) significant enough accumulated genetic drift copy error for that bishopric to have evolved or morphed into being not "chair of Peter", much at all, for it had become in spirit (and letter too?) something else yet again other than simple carrying on of earliest apostolic teaching. Each are called according to that which was passed on to the Apostles, and then bishops collectively there further, for each bishop in the earliest ages, although not all of them made so by Peter, or by Paul, or yet some other Apostle, were not at that time so entirely independent they not need unity with one another, but rather, down to the last congregant, were all collectively called to unity under Christ --- even Christ alone. If otherwise Peter was to be seen as "head" and the intent was for some lineage of bishopric flowing allegedly from Peter alone be where ultimate authority rested, then Paul would have told us all, in writing, such as 1 Corinthians 1).

Of some passing, possible interest, the bishopric of Rome was once famed, in part, after a couple of full centuries had gone by since Christ had risen from the tomb -- the high esteem was due only to Peter having once spent some number of years there, near the end of his life, but that Paul also had been present among the early opening years of the church there at Rome --- but --- somewhere alone the line -- I do not at the moment precisely recall, a much later Bishop of Rome (thus--"pope") declared that Paul was and always had been of lesser status or rank than Peter.

The truth is more that although Peter ws seen as "first" by many, in the beginning centuries of the Church all in authority, all bishops as it were, each held some measure of equality, even as each was to have conceptually, in themselves, had as their own inherited authority --- collectively all of the original Apostle's authority, each holding as it were equality with one another as brethren --- not sons of this Apostle, or that other one, for Paul himself wrote squarely against that sort of notion FROM THE VERY BEGINNINGS.

The so-called "Protestants" of this world had long attempted to point these things out to Roman Catholics, but the latter had in times past, and even so now, adamantly refused to allow themselves (again, theologically speaking) to be corrected.

After several or more centuries, most have given up the effort to point things like this out, so much --- that they came to not hardly thinking about or talking about [Roman] Catholicisms among themselves hardly at all.

There are notable exceptions for this of course, but I can honestly say to any and all I here -- that I myself would most likely have never come to study the issues if it not for here on the pages of FreeRepublic seeing such things as the comment to which I now reply being published here daily.

So I could thank those whom by their own efforts to assert and yet again re-assert portions of RCC apologetic, provide always opportunity to demonstrate just how over-inflated (or distorted, as compared to as Scripture reveals spirit of NT Church) that it be often as metmom once said, the RC arguments "seemingly solid until one pokes at it" which then can result in the apologetic "deflating".

Altogether, if this forum has not made a theologian out of myself --- it certainly has made a polemicist out of me, in response to the ever-present but occasionally well-camouflaged polemics of Romanists. I was nothing of the sort some 15 years ormore ago --- but have been driven to it by having read the daily dosage of Romish distortions of even the Gospel itself. If it not be such an important subject -- then I would not care. But I do care, for I would hope for everyone to know the truth, with that not being that the RCC all-in-all is terrible or something, but rather that God is good, and that the written word, the Scriptures themselves are true.

If not for this forum, and having needed to have been myself continually studying and researching, sifting and searching yet further as for confirmation or falsification of hosts of items of discussion, I doubt that I would know the details as well as I now do.

Thank you for again showing just how weak official, high level RC apologetic can be.

As an attorney, my training is to look for the controlling law, the uppermost principle in the pyramid of rules that controls all the others. In 1 Corinthians 11, as with the other Scriptures describing the institution of the Lord's Supper, we are told explicitly what the purpose of the institution is, and it is NOT to confer either grace or eternal life, but as Paul summarizes it, to commemorate and proclaim the Lord's death till He returns. No other purposes for it are ever given by Jesus or the apostles:

Institutional passages:

1] Matthew 26:26-29

Matthew 26:26-29 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

2] Mark 14:22-25

Mark 14:22-25 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. (23) And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. (24) And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. (25) Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

3] Luke 22:15-20

Luke 22:15-20 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: (16) For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. (17) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: (18) For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. (19) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (20) Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

4] 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: (24) And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. (25) After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Observations:

1. John 6 is not institutive:

John 6 is omitted from this list because it does not institute the Lord's Supper. It happens relatively early in Jesus' ministry, and is a watershed discussion of what it means to believe in Jesus, summarized well here:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

As Jesus clearly teaches through the bread metaphor, the body and blood of Jesus, given for us, become to us a way to feed spiritually on Christ. But not according to fleshly eating, which misunderstanding He corrects in verse 63, but rather according to spiritual eating, by which He means, as verse 35 makes clear, having faith, believing on Jesus, who He is, what He has done for us, what He will do for us. Believing IS eating.

2. Declaration of purpose in the institutive passages:

As stated above, not one of the institutive passages introduces a sacramental view of the Eucharist (literally, the Thanksgiving). Rather the declared purpose is two-fold: First, to commemorate Jesus, not only in His death, but the whole Jesus, "in remembrance of me," and second, to proclaim His death till He comes back. To suggest there are other formal purposes is to add to the word of God. Therefore we can be certain that the stated purposes are sufficient to understand why we are supposed to conduct this sacred meal. If we say that there is a further purpose of conferring sacramental grace, critical to our salvation, which the Holy Spirit failed to mention here or anywhere else in Scripture, we make ourselves out to be wiser than the Holy Spirit, which would be an extremely unwise position to take.

3. Objections to the sufficiency of the declared purposes:

a) "The Eucharist is necessarily sacramental because after the blessing it becomes the true substance of the body and blood of Christ, which in turn from John 6 is known to confer eternal life if eaten corporeally, and because we know this salvation to be by grace, therefore the act of corporeally eating Christ is sacramental, i.e., it efficaciously confers a state of grace. The evidence for this corporeal realism, and the premise which supports the rest of the logic, is the expression 'this is my body.'"

Response 1: When Jesus says, "this is my body," that is not the language of one thing "becoming" something else. The verb for becoming, ginomai, was not used here. But saying "A is B," using eimi, the simple verb of being, does fit very well the standard way of stating a direct metaphor, both in Greek and in many other Indo-European languages. Therefore, concluding by a special pleading that the simple "is" necessarily implies all that transubstantiation describes is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. A metaphor is not only a perfectly valid way to understand those words, but is the default and most ordinary way to understand such an expression.

Example: If I point to a white dot on my GPS map of Illinois, and say "This is Springfield," no sane person reading this paragraph is going to think I literally mean the white dot is actually a city called Springfield with thousands of people milling around in it on the surface of my GPS screen. And because it is so obviously NOT literal (corporeal), it automatically triggers a metaphor recognition process in the human brain, and can be immediately identified BY EVERYONE as a visual metaphor. The pixels remain pixels, but in our mind we're automatically directed to think about the real Springfield.

Response 2: Jesus does not acknowledge a substitution of substances, but actively refutes that a substitution of substance has occurred. When He says in Mark, "I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine," He confirms the substance of what He gives them to still be the fruit of the vine, even after the blessing. This is more than acceptance of accidents. An accident is by definition not essential to fulfilling the platonic archetype. A chair made of wood and a chair made of rock are both still chairs. Choice of material is irrelevant. The fruit of the vine could be composed of any number of incidental materials, even materials that change over time. But it still remains identifiable as "fruit of the vine," so it retains it's platonic "substance," according to what Jesus says here. This directly refutes the Aquinian theory.

Response 3: Corporeally eating Christ is never asserted in John 6. The main objection of Jesus' audience was their misapprehension that the eating was somehow corporeal, but even they did not have a unified understanding, because a sharp dispute was going on amongst them. Verse 63 is a direct response to that controversy, and in it we have Jesus directly refuting the corporeal view of eating Him.

b) "When Paul reprimands the Corinthians for failing to 'Discern the body' of the Lord,' he is referring exclusively to the bread and wine. Therefore we know the bread and wine are, in substance, the body and blood of Christ."

(27) Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. (28) But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (29) For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Response: What was the reason Paul brought up the Lord's Supper in the first place? Certain individuals had conflated the sacred meal with their pagan drunken parties, which is bad enough, but had also used the eating as an occasion to exhibit a piggish selfishness, consuming the meal before the poorer brethren arrived, leaving them go hungry, as if they were unimportant to the body of Christ. "Non-essential personnel." This loveless, thoughtless behavior was causing hurtful divisions within the fellowship, and was a direct rejection, in practice, of the unity of faith and love God desires for His people:

1 Corinthians 12:12-14 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. (13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (14) For the body is not one member, but many.

From which we see again one of Paul's main themes for this epistle, that the body of Christ should not be divided, because Christ has given us a sufficient basis for being one body. Christ is our head. We are His body. Furthermore, Paul has already been working to teach this theme of unity based on our shared experience of the Eucharist:

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (17) For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

So the context is not a discourse on Aristotelian substances. Instead, Paul has a pastoral objective, to make these fighting, rude, and crude Corinthians to get what it means to be unified in that one true bread. Hence the emphasis on koinonia, translated "communion" above, meaning "fellowship," as opposed to arcane and impersonal concerns over substance. When he chides the party animals for "not discerning the Lord's body," he is not discussing some gnostic awareness of the hidden world of substances, or platonic forms, versus the world of appearances. That would be 1) completely offtrack from his pastoral objective of unity, and 2) would be a step toward gnostic heresy, in which a subjective mystic experience of the gnosis takes precedence over the plain and open teaching of spiritual truth.

It helps to realize the word "discern" here is diakrino, which shares the same base word as many of the other "judgment" terms used in this passage. As such, it does NOT mean to mystically detect a magical or sacramental quality of the bread. Paul is really telling them they need to make a thoughtful distinction between their private reckless parties versus the body of the Lord, which is present in the fellowship of the believing community during the sacred meal. The elements of the meal call us to remember Him, His unselfish sacrifice on our behalf, His prayer that we should all be one, that we should prefer another's needs over our own. It is when we fall short of that standard of love, and are heartless toward each other, that is when we become unworthy to partake of that meal which proclaims till the end of the age the Gospel of God's selfless love and forgiveness in the death of Jesus Christ.

In other words, we have to choose. What does the Lord's Supper mean to us? Free food? A private gnosis of mystic union with the divine? Or love one another as Jesus loved you?

More could be said. Many books could be written. But if we do as he said, remember Him, and proclaim His death till He comes, and do so worthily, with a full and proper love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, every one of them our better, no matter what their circumstances, we honor His word.

Peace,

SR

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.