Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 02/25/2015 3:29:26 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:

childishness



Skip to comments.

Is The Roman Catholic View of the Eucharist Supported by the Historical Evidence?
In Plain Site ^ | Jason Engwer

Posted on 02/20/2015 12:33:03 PM PST by RnMomof7

There aren't many subjects Catholic apologists like to discuss more than the eucharist. Even if their arguments about the papacy are refuted, even if the evidence they cite for the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and other doctrines isn't convincing, they still think they have a strong argument in the doctrine of the eucharist. They'll quote John 6 and the passages of scripture about the Last Supper. They'll quote centuries of church fathers referring to the eucharist as a sacrifice and referring to Jesus being present in the elements of the eucharist. They'll point out that even Protestants like Martin Luther have believed in a eucharistic presence. How, then, can evangelicals maintain that the eucharist is just symbolic, that there is no presence of Christ? Are evangelicals going to go up against 1500 years of church history?

This sort of reasoning seems to have had a lot of influence on evangelicals who have converted to Catholicism. Some converts to the Catholic Church even cite the eucharist as the primary issue, or one of the most significant issues, in convincing them to convert. But is the argument as compelling as so many Catholics think it is?

There are a lot of problems with this popular Catholic argument. The argument isn't even a defense of Catholicism. It's a defense of something like what the Catholic Church teaches. The Council of Trent made it clear just what the Catholic position is on this issue (emphasis added):

According to the Catholic Church, transubstantiation is the view of the eucharist always held by the Christian church. Some Catholics try to redefine this claim of the Council of Trent by saying that what Trent meant is that there was always some sort of belief in a presence in the eucharist, which was later defined more specifically as transubstantiation. While it's true that Trent doesn't claim that the word "transubstantiation" has always been used, Trent does claim that the concept has always been held by the Christian church.

There are two sentences in the quote above. The first sentence refers to a view of the eucharist always being held by the Christian church. The second sentence says that this view is transubstantiation. The way in which Trent describes the view always held by the Christian church makes it clear that transubstantiation is being described. The council refers to the whole substance of the bread and the whole substance of the wine being converted. That's transubstantiation.

Why do Catholic apologists attempt to redefine what the Council of Trent taught? Because what Trent said is false. Let's consider just some of the evidence that leads to this conclusion.

Though Catholics often cite some alleged references to their view of the eucharist in the Bible, the truth is that there's no evidence of the Catholic eucharist in scripture. John 6 is often cited as referring to eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood by means of a transubstantiated eucharist. There are a lot of problems with the Catholic view of John 6, however, such as the fact that Jesus speaks in the present tense about how He is the bread of life and how people are responsible for eating and drinking Him. Jesus doesn't refer to how these things will begin in the future, when the eucharist is instituted. Rather, He refers to them as a present reality. And John 6:35 identifies what the eating and drinking are. The passage is not about the eucharist. (See http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/john666.htm for a further discussion of the problems with the Catholic interpretation of John 6.) Likewise, the passages about the Last Supper don't prove transubstantiation. They could be interpreted as references to a physical presence of Christ in the eucharist. That's a possibility. But they can also be interpreted otherwise.

There's no evidence for the Catholic view of the eucharist in scripture, but there is some evidence against it. In Matthew 26:29, Jesus refers to the contents of the cup as "this fruit of the vine". It couldn't be wine, though, if transubstantiation had occurred. And Jesus refers to drinking the contents of the cup with His followers again in the kingdom to come. Yet, the eucharist apparently is to be practiced only until Jesus returns (1 Corinthians 11:26). If the cup in Matthew 26:29 contained transubstantiated blood, then why would Jesus refer to drinking that substance with His followers in the future, at a time when there would be no eucharist? And if the eucharist is a sacrifice as the Catholic Church defines it to be, why is there no mention of the eucharist in the book of Hebrews?

The author of Hebrews is silent about the eucharist in places where we would expect the eucharist to be mentioned, if it was viewed as the Catholic Church views it. This is acknowledged even by Catholic scholars. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990) is a Catholic commentary that some of the foremost Catholic scholars in the world contributed to. It was edited by Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy. Near the end of the section on the book of Hebrews, the commentary admits:

There's nothing wrong with viewing the eucharist as a sacrifice in the sense of thanksgiving and praise (Hebrews 13:15). Some of the church fathers referred to the eucharist in such a way. For example, Justin Martyr wrote the following in response to the followers of Judaism who claimed to be fulfilling Malachi 1:11 (emphasis added):

These arguments of Justin Martyr are contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. According to Justin Martyr, the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of being a means by which Christians offer prayers and thanksgiving to God. Justin Martyr not only says nothing of the eucharist being a sacrifice in the sense Catholics define it to be, but he even excludes the possibility of the Catholic view by saying that the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of prayers and thanksgiving being offered through it. Justin Martyr seems to have had Biblical passages like Hebrews 13:15 in mind, which is a concept that evangelicals agree with. The eucharist is a sacrifice in that sense.

Some church fathers defined the eucharist as a sacrifice differently than Justin Martyr, including in ways that are similar to the Catholic view. But Justin Martyr illustrates two things. First, it's false to claim that all of the church fathers viewed the eucharist as the Catholic Church views it. Secondly, the eucharist can be referred to as a sacrifice in numerous ways. It's not enough for Catholic apologists to cite a church father referring to the eucharist as a sacrifice. What type of sacrifice did the church father believe it to be? And how convincing are that church father's arguments?

Even more than they discuss the concept that the eucharist is an atoning sacrifice, Catholics argue that there's a presence of Christ in the eucharist, and that the church fathers agreed with them on this issue. Some Catholics will even claim that every church father believed in a presence in the eucharist. They'll often cite a scholar like J.N.D. Kelly referring to the church fathers believing in a "real presence" in the eucharist. But what these Catholics often don't do is quote what Kelly goes on to say. As Kelly explains, the church fathers defined "real presence" in a number of ways, including ways that contradict transubstantiation. Some of the church fathers were closer to the consubstantiation of Lutheranism or the spiritual presence of Calvinism, for example.

See the section titled "The Church and the Host" at:
http://www.aomin.org/JRWOpening.html

Also see the historian Philip Schaff's comments in section 69 at:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch05.htm

And section 95 at:
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm

I also recommend consulting Schaff's footnotes, since the notes cite additional passages from the fathers and cite other scholars confirming Schaff's conclusions.

The church fathers held a wide variety of views on subjects such as how to interpret John 6 and Christ's presence in the eucharist. For example, Clement of Alexandria wrote the following about John 6 (emphasis added):

In another passage, Clement contradicts transubstantiation. He writes the following about how Christians should conduct themselves when drinking alcohol (emphasis added):

Clement, like evangelicals, cites Matthew 26:29 as evidence that Jesus drank wine. If Clement believed that wine is what was drunk at the Last Supper, he didn't believe in transubstantiation.

Similarly, Irenaeus denies transubstantiation in his writings. He seems to have believed in consubstantiation rather than the Catholic view of the eucharist. For example (emphasis added):

Irenaeus describes the eucharist as consisting of two realities, one that comes from Heaven and another that's from the earth. He refers to the eucharist as an example of drinking wine, the same substance that people will drink in Christ's future kingdom, after the eucharist has served its purpose (1 Corinthians 11:26). Irenaeus, like Clement of Alexandria, contradicts transubstantiation. Though Irenaeus does seem to have believed in a presence in the eucharist, it isn't transubstantiation.

Other examples could be cited, and other examples are cited in the article I linked to above. It's a historical fact that the church fathers held a variety of eucharistic beliefs, including some that contradict what the Catholic Church teaches. This fact is contrary to the Council of Trent's claim that transubstantiation had always been the view held by the Christian church.

It should be noted, also, that many evangelicals believe in a presence in the eucharist. Some believe in consubstantiation. Some believe in a spiritual presence. Evangelicals don't even have to hold to any specific view. Jesus and the apostles told Christians to celebrate the eucharist. A Christian can do so without knowing whether there's any presence of Christ in the eucharist or what type of presence there is. For an evangelical, this issue isn't too significant. The reliability of our rule of faith (the Bible) isn't dependent on proving that Christ is present in the eucharist in some particular way. Catholics, on the other hand, must defend the Catholic Church's allegedly infallible teaching of transubstantiation. They must also defend the Council of Trent's claim that transubstantiation is the view always held by the Christian church, as well as Trent's claim that every other view is unacceptable. Evangelicals just don't carry the same burden of proof that Catholics carry on this issue. Catholics can't say that this is unfair, since the claims of the Catholic Church itself are what create the added burden of proof for the Catholic apologist. If you don't want to have to carry such a burden, then tell your denomination to quit making such weighty claims.

In summary:

The eucharist is another issue that illustrates how anachronistic, misleading, and false many of the claims of the Catholic Church are. Some Catholics seem to ignore or minimize their denomination's errors on issues like the papacy and the Immaculate Conception, because they think that the Catholic Church is at least closer to the truth than evangelicalism on other issues, like the eucharist. But such reasoning is fallacious. For one thing, all it takes is one error to refute Catholicism. Since the Catholic Church teaches that its traditions are just as authoritative as scripture, an error on one subject also disproves what the Catholic Church has taught on other subjects. If the Immaculate Conception doctrine is contrary to the evidence, for example, that isn't just problematic for the doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived. It's also problematic for the doctrine of papal infallibility, since Pope Pius IX allegedly was exercising that power when he declared Mary to be conceived without sin. When the Catholic Church is shown to be wrong on the eucharist, the Immaculate Conception, or some other issue, that has implications for far more than just that one doctrine.

With regard to the eucharist, consider one of the larger implications of the Catholic Church being wrong on that subject. If it's true that the church fathers held a wide variety of eucharistic beliefs, and that they also held a wide variety of beliefs on a lot of other subjects, what does that tell us about early church history? It tells us that it's unlikely that the church fathers were part of one worldwide denomination headed by a Pope. What's more likely is that the church fathers disagreed with each other so much because they belonged to churches that were governmentally independent of one another, and they interpreted the scriptures for themselves. In fact, many of the church fathers specifically said as much. The fact that there were so many differing views among the church fathers, including views that contradict what the Catholic Church teaches, suggests that they weren't Roman Catholics.

If the Catholic Church isn't reliable, what are we to conclude about the eucharist, then? What do we do if we can't trust Catholicism to tell us what to believe? We ought to go to the scriptures. And if the beliefs of the church fathers and other sources are relevant in some way, we should also consider those things. We should study the issue ourselves instead of just uncritically accepting whatever an institution like the Roman Catholic Church teaches. When we go to the scriptures, we find that a number of eucharistic views are plausible, but transubstantiation isn't one of them (Matthew 26:29). The concept that the eucharist is an atoning sacrifice is unacceptable. Trying to continually offer Christ's sacrifice as an atonement for our sins, and offering it as a further atonement of the temporal portion of sins already forgiven, is contrary to what's taught in the book of Hebrews, such as Hebrews 9:12-10:18. For example, in Hebrews 9:25-26, we see the author distinguishing between Christ's sacrifice and the offering of that sacrifice. Not only was Christ only sacrificed once, but He also offered that one sacrifice to God only once. Catholics acknowledge that there was only one sacrifice, but they argue that the one sacrifice is offered repeatedly through the eucharist. This claim of the Catholic Church is contrary to scripture. And there are a lot of other contradictions between what scripture teaches on these subjects and what the Catholic Church teaches, especially in the book of Hebrews. We can reasonably arrive at a number of different views of the eucharist, but the Catholic view isn't one of them.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Mainline Protestant; Theology
KEYWORDS: bread; doctrine; worship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 581-592 next last
To: Arthur McGowan
On the cross, Christ said, "It is finished."

Why didn't the world end at that moment?

Seriously? Are you being serious? Is that all you have?

I thought you were far better than this, Arthur. Okay, I'll type this nice and slow so you can understand it: Christ's once and final salvific sacrifice on the cross was completed.

And, actually, there was an ending that occurred...the Temple Veil was rent...Christ became our intercessor and mediator (not his mom)...the old sacrificial system was no longer needed.

And since Christ himself said that it was finished, why does the Roman Catholic Church strive to make him a liar?

Hoss

361 posted on 02/22/2015 6:10:21 AM PST by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

Do you have a religion, Hoss?


362 posted on 02/22/2015 7:06:30 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: rwa265
Very little is known about Linus. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) and the historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 339) identified him with the companion of Paul who sent greetings from Rome to Timothy in Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:21), but Scripture Scholars are generally hesistant to do so...It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief--that monoarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34).

Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as "greatest, most ancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul." Here we must acknowledge a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was obviously not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, pp. 35,147).

According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone, appointed Linus as the first in the succession of bishops of Rome. This suggests that Irenaeus did not think of Peter and Paul as bishops, or of Linus and those that followed as successors of Peter more than of Paul (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 148).

And then we have this interesting tidbit. Tertullian doesn't mention Linus but does Clement as following Peter.

Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this (Tertullian. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum. Circa 200 A.D. as cited in Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Do a study on the history of the title pope for a single individual and you will find it didn't exist until at least the fourth century.

We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).

The Catholic Church itself admits that the apostles were above the office of any pope. John didn't die till 100AD yet they would give the highest position in the church to Linus already in 67AD. They claim Peter was pope and died in 64AD but appointed Linus pope in 67AD.

The Catholic notion of succession of popes is built on fallacy as are many of their beliefs.

363 posted on 02/22/2015 7:17:06 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

I am Christian.

Hoss


364 posted on 02/22/2015 7:18:55 AM PST by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

Okay, and you run your own church and think no one else is a Christian?


365 posted on 02/22/2015 7:21:46 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre

No. Only God knows the heart. I question the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church when presented in posts on this forum, just like others do.

Do you?

Hoss


366 posted on 02/22/2015 7:33:10 AM PST by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Disprove me

Google ‘NFP’ read it and weep

From what ive read, divorce rates of Catholics on artificial birth control is the same as prots.


367 posted on 02/22/2015 7:40:53 AM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre; HossB86
I am Christian.

Hoss

I join in your testimony, dear HossB86! I am a Christian, plain and simple.

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. - 2 Cor 11:3

Indeed, I am a "bakery shop kid." Waaay back in the 50’s, when I was in elementary school, several of us kids would meet after school in the local bakery shop while they were cleaning up. The owners would give us drinks and left-over goodies. We’d bring our Bibles, read and just talk about Jesus.

My older sister – now in heaven – was always the ring leader.

It so happened that an old retired Baptist preacher heard about the bakery shop kids and came by to meet us. He was moved by what he saw and he used his life’s savings to build a tiny little church up the street.

Naturally all the kids got the rest of their families to join them in meeting in the new church – and before you knew it we were all baptized Southern Baptist. The church grew and split and had missionary churches of it own.

If it had been someone from another Christian “label” who found the bakery shop kids, built the church and baptized us, I’d probably be wearing a different label today. LOLOL!

As it is my "letter" has always been in a Baptist church, though that point is meaningless to me because at the root, I will always be that bakery shop kid – a Christian, plain and simple.

Truly, the religion was already established when Christ was enfleshed; namely, Judaism. Jesus Christ builds a family:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13

Plain and simple.

God's Name is I AM.

368 posted on 02/22/2015 7:55:24 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Alamo-Girl,

What a lovely testimony! I’ll have to remember “The Bakery Shop Kids”

:)

Hoss


369 posted on 02/22/2015 8:17:20 AM PST by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98

Any answer for me yet?

Hoss


370 posted on 02/22/2015 8:18:18 AM PST by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

That’s probably why you are not Catholic.
No... There’s really simple reason I’m not Catholic....


I realized after I posted that I should not have attributed a reason for why you are not Catholic, and I apologize for that.


371 posted on 02/22/2015 8:38:41 AM PST by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: rwa265

No problem, R...

I didn’t take any offense! And no need to apologize.

Hoss


372 posted on 02/22/2015 8:47:30 AM PST by HossB86 (Christ, and Him alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this (Tertullian. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum. Circa 200 A.D. as cited in Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).


CynicalBear, do you not realize that this excerpt was taken from a strong defense by Tertullian of Apostolic succession? Here is a more extensive quote from the same source:

So Tertullian deals with heresies: it is of no use to listen to their arguments or refute them, for we have a number of antecendent proofs that they cannot deserve a hearing. Heresies, he begins, must not astonish us, for they were prophesied. Heretics urge the text, “Seek and ye shall find”, but this was not said to Christians; we have a rule of faith to be accepted without question. “Let curiosity give place to faith and vain glory make way for salvation”, so Tertullian parodies a line of Cicero’s. The heretics argue out of Scripture; but, first, we are forbidden to consort with a heretic after one rebuke has been delivered, and secondly, disputation results only in blasphemy on the one side and indignation on the other, while the listener goes away more puzzled than he came. The real question is, “To whom does the Faith belong? Whose are the Scriptures? By whom, through whom, when and to whom has been handed down the discipline by which we are Christians? The answer is plain: Christ sent His apostles, who founded churches in each city, from which the others have borrowed the tradition of the Faith and the seed of doctrine and daily borrow in order to become churches; so that they also are Apostolic in that they are the offspring of the Apostolic churches. All are that one Church which the Apostles founded, so long as peace and intercommunion are observed [dum est illis communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis]. Therefore the testimony to the truth is this: We communicate with the apostolic Churches”. The heretics will reply that the Apostles did not know all the truth. Could anything be unknown to Peter, who was called the rock on which the Church was to be built? or to John, who lay on the Lord’s breast? But they will say, the churches have erred. Some indeed went wrong, and were corrected by the Apostle; though for others he had nothing but praise. “But let us admit that all have erred:- is it credible that all these great churches should have strayed into the same faith”? Admitting this absurdity, then all the baptisms, spiritual gifts, miracles, martyrdoms, were in vain until Marcion and Valentinus appeared at last! Truth will be younger than error; for both these heresiarchs are of yesterday, and were still Catholics at Rome in the episcopate of Eleutherius (this name is a slip or a false reading). Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this. Why, their errors were denounced by the Apostles long ago. Finally (36), he names some Apostolic churches, pointing above all to Rome, whose witness is nearest at hand, - happy Church, in which the Apostles poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter suffered a death like his Master’s, where Paul was crowned with an end like the Baptist’s, where John was plunged into fiery oil without hurt!


373 posted on 02/22/2015 9:52:34 AM PST by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: rwa265

ROFL! Catholic appeal to longevity for legitimacy yet read the account of the seven churches in Revelation to see how quickly they strayed from the truth.


374 posted on 02/22/2015 9:57:21 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: rwa265

Good points. Also, I think most of these heretics are actually quarreling with God and not so much with the Roman Catholic Church. They see that a Priest sinned, and claim that unless all Priest are without sin than the Church Jesus created is flawed beyond redemption. They forget that all men are flawed and that no Church can be run by humans who are without sin. They declare their love of God and speak maliciously of fellow Christians, even claiming that Catholics are not Christians.


375 posted on 02/22/2015 9:59:39 AM PST by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: HossB86

sorry I cant give you what you need.

I am a cradle Catholic.

I became firmly, totally and forever Catholic when I was about 10 when I was serving 6:30am weekday Mass.

It was mid-winter and was just the organist (who sang the Mass in Latin), myself (a newbie altar server) the priest and no parishioners (at least that I saw).

The Mass was nearing the consecration when the priest intones the SANCTUS while the organist singing to God sings the SANCTUS in Gregorian chant.

the priest says:
SANCTUS, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua. Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis.

which means:
HOLY, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of Thy glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

meanwhile the organist sang the Sanctus acapella in Gregorian chant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n_DUZN3Ahw

At that moment I knew what it meant to be Catholic and to ‘be lifted up’ and ‘to be in the Spirit’.

I will be that Catholic to the day I die.

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
For the Greater Glory of God


376 posted on 02/22/2015 10:19:46 AM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; HossB86
>On the cross, Christ said, "It is finished."<

Why didn't the world end at that moment?

Art ol' boy, I sure hope you just arguing for arguing sake.

If not, you need to do some real in-depth Bible study...or perhaps obtain a degree in theology from an accredited seminary school.

You represent yourself as a catholic priest. Are you representative of all priests?

Still waiting to hear if you're in favor or not of the fifth marion dogma......

377 posted on 02/22/2015 10:22:23 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: LurkingSince'98
At that moment I knew what it meant to be Catholic and to ‘be lifted up’ and ‘to be in the Spirit’.

Again...catholics identify with a denomination....not the Savior.

There is a difference.

378 posted on 02/22/2015 10:23:44 AM PST by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

I’m sure from your response you either did not read what I wrote or you don’t understand it.

Either way IT IS YOUR LOSS.

AMDG


379 posted on 02/22/2015 10:32:41 AM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam = FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Nice ad hominem. The fact of the matter, though, is that instead of showing that the succession of popes is built on fallacy, Tertullian’s Liber de praescriptione haereticorum is a strong affirmation of Apostolic succession.


380 posted on 02/22/2015 10:32:44 AM PST by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 581-592 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson