Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good?

http://www.wordonfire.org ^ | May 25, 2015 | Matt Nelson

[NKP_Vet]

Western civilization is greatly indebted to the Catholic Church. Modern historical studies—such as Dr. Thomas E. Woods' How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization—have demonstrated with force and clarity that it is the Catholic Church who has been the primary driving force behind the development and progress of the civilized world.

The Church has provided innumerable 'goods' for the benefit of humanity. Nonetheless, modern critics assert that no amount of good could outweigh the evil the Church has allegedly committed in contrast. Talk is cheap, however. We must look at the evidence. Has the Church really been an irreconcilable force for evil in the world?

BIG QUESTIONS

There are three principal issues repeatedly brought to the table by adversaries of the Catholic Church: religious violence, priest scandals, and ill-treatment of women. But do these objections hold water when their integrity is put to the test? And are they enough to render the Church "no good" in our final analysis?

Now let's be clear: throughout the duration of this piece, I am not seeking in any way to deny or defend the sins of any Catholic individual or group. The chief question I propose is not whether there have been malicious members of the Catholic Church (there obviously have been). The question at hand is whether the Catholic Church as a whole ought to be considered a force for evil.

Let's consider briefly the general assertion that religion is the chief cause of violence in the world. This position, in fact, is not supported by the data. Joe Heschmeyer has shown this quite articulately in his recent article at Strange Notions, Is Religion Responsible For The World's Violence?

Evil members of a Church do not necessarily indicate an evil Church. One must be cautious; because this line of reasoning commits an error in logic called the fallacy of composition. We would not say, "the elephant consists of tiny parts, therefore the elephant is tiny"; and thus, we should not say that the Church is sinister because she has sinister members. The parts do not necessarily define the whole; and in the case of the Catholic Church, the parts justify the whole. As G.K Chesterton writes in The Everlasting Man:

“The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do. ”

RECLAIMING THE HOMELAND

Sound historical scholarship has shown—contrary to what modern textbooks might falsely suggest—that the Crusades ought not be considered such a black mark in Catholic Church history. Dr. Diane Moczar summarizes the facts in her historical defense, Seven Lies About Catholic History:

"To recapitulate: the Crusades were a response to unprovoked Muslim aggression against Christian states, as well as a response to the enslavement, killing and persecution of countless followers of Christ. They were not examples of European colonialism or imperialism, which lay far in the future, nor were they intended to convert anybody; they were a military answer to a military attack." (p.73)

Moczar demonstrates that the Crusades were largely just (see CCC 2302-2317) and with far-reaching benefits for the people of Europe. She cites historian Louis Bréhier, who also concludes:

"It would be unjust to condemn out of hand these five centuries of heroism which had such fertile results for the history of Europe and which left behind in the consciences of modern peoples a certain ideal of generosity and a taste for sacrifice on behalf of noble causes....." (from The Crusades: The Victory Of Idealism)

Steven Weidenkopf, a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College, has also clarified the true nature of the Crusades in his footnote-laden treatise, The Glory of the Crusades. Weidenkopf's title is bold, but his analysis is fair and evidence based. In his scholarly assessment of the Crusades he carefully notes:

"To recognize the glory of the Crusades means not to whitewash what was ignoble about them, but to call attention to the import in the life of the Church." (p.14)

Moczar likewise recognizes that not all things regarding the Crusades are to be "glorified." Nonetheless, both Moczar and Weidenkopf decisively demonstrate in their research that, by and large, the Catholic Church's participation in the Crusades ought not be considered evil nor unjust.

HANDLING HERETICS

The real story of the Inquisition is—like the Crusades—not congruent with what one finds in today's error-ridden history textbooks.

Statistics regarding the total number of Inquisition-related deaths have been shamefully embellished by antagonists of the Church, with some asserting numbers in the millions. Though the precise numbers are foggy, recent scholarship has put the number of deaths at just a few thousand over several centuries.

Modern research by historical experts, such as Henry Kamen, Benzion Netanyahu and Edward M. Peters, have demonstrated that the Inquisition was not nearly as harsh or cruel as popularly suggested. Overturning traditional views, they have shown that the Church courts were often both patient and fair in their treatment of heretics. In fact, Church officials were so reasonable in the Inquisition process that heretics in the secular courts (heresy was also a political concern) would blaspheme with hope that they might be transferred to the more merciful Church inquisitors.

This is not to deny, however, that the actions of some Christians were unjust. Moczar concludes:

"Were there cruel inquisitors in some places? Of course. Were methods of interrogation distasteful to modern sensibilities? Sure... [But] given its formidable task of guarding the purity of the Faith in Christian souls, however, the overall record of the Inquisition in dealing with heresy is not only defensible but admirable." (p. 102)

CELIBACY ISN'T THE PROBLEM

This is not a defense of the guilty. It is a defense of the unjustly accused and stigmatized. The data is clear—celibate Catholic priests are no more likely to abuse children than clergy from any another denomination, or even teachers and other secular adult leadership. As Ernie Allen, the president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, has stated:

“We don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this [abuse] or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else." (Pat Wingert, “Mean Men,” Newsweek, April 8, 2010)

Professor of psychology, Dr. Thomas Plante, agrees with Allen:

"Catholic clergy aren’t more likely to abuse children than other clergy or men in general." ("Do the Right Thing", psychologytoday.com, March 24, 2010)

Celibacy is not the problem—and Dr. Chris Kaczor has made this decisively clear. He summarizes the evidence with this statement:

"The evidence is substantial and confirmed by psychologists, researchers, and insurance companies: Priestly celibacy is not a risk factor for the sexual abuse of children." ("Celibacy Isn't The Problem", This Rock, vol. 21, 5)

In his vastly informative book, The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church, Dr. Kaczor's research conclusively disarms the celibacy-leads-to-pedophilia myth and puts it to rest once and for all.

Indeed, Catholic clergy should be held to a higher standard—the highest standard in fact—but it is unreasonable to condemn the whole priesthood because of the sins of an ultra-minority. There is simply no good reason to fear Catholic clergy any more than other religious leaders, teachers or the general population. I say without hesitation (and as a dad) that Catholic priests, by and large, are among the most trustworthy citizens of our society today. And the data agrees.

"SHE SHALL BE CALLED WOMAN"

Finally, is the Church's view on women really immoral? Let's begin with the fiery issue of "female ordination": Why aren't women allowed to serve as priests in the Church? Is this not a violation of gender equality?

Properly understood, this is a matter of the Church's incapability to ordain women due to what a Catholic priest is. It is the nature of the priesthood that makes female ordination an impossibility. These key facts may help to underline this point:

I) Jesus called twelve apostles, all of whom were men (Mk 3:14-19; Lk 6:12-16)

II) The twelve apostles ordained men only to succeed them (1 Tim 3:1-13; 2 Tim 1:6; Titus 1:5-9)

III) These men were given a special gift and authority to serve in persona Christi or "in the person of Christ" (see 2 Cor 2:10; John 20:21-23)

IV) Christ was a man; therefore those who serve "in his person" must also be men.

Therefore a female Catholic priest is about as possible as a male mother. The nature of the Catholic priesthood renders female ordination impossible, just as male mothers are an impossibility because of the nature of motherhood. Indeed, male-only ordination is discriminatory; but this is not a matter of preference but of deference to the "nature of things"; for it is the nature of nature to discriminate.

St. John Paul the Great understood this with profound clarity:

"The Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and...this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, 4).

What was Jesus' attitude toward women? Once again, we turn to the words of St. John Paul the Great:

"When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the gospel contains an ever relevant message that goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance, and tenderness. In this way he honored the dignity that women have always possessed according to God's plan and in his love." (Letter to Women, 3)

Like her Founder, the Catholic Church reveres 'woman' and attributes to her the highest dignity. The mother of Christ, for example, has been widely revered by Catholics from the earliest centuries of Christianity as the mother of all Christians (Jn 19:26-27). No person in history—except perhaps Christ Himself—has received more love and honour than Mary. The Church has also named four female Doctors of the Church—Sts. Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Siena, Therese of Lisieux and Hildegard of Bingen—and recognized them for their extraordinary influence on the life of the universal Christian Church.

And is it not true that women largely tend to avoid places where they are unfairly discriminated against and patronized? If the Catholic Church really treated women unjustly, would we not expect a female aversion to the Church? Surely. But this is not what we find.

Notre Dame theologian, Catherine Lacugna, states:

85% of those responsible for altar preparation are women. Over 80% of the CCD (religious formation) teachers and sponsors of the catechumenate are women. Over 75% of adult Bible study leaders or participants are women. Over 70% of those who are active in parish renewal and spiritual growth are women, and over 80% of those who join prayer groups are women. Nearly 60% of those involved with youth groups and recreational activities are women. (Catholic Women As Ministers And Theologians, 240)

Women are not afraid of the Church. They are attracted to it. Why? Because she fights for the beauty and dignity of femininity as no other institution on earth does.

Referring to the words of his saintly predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI said these words in praise of women:

"As my venerable and dear Predecessor John Paul II wrote in his Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem: "The Church gives thanks for each and every woman.... The Church gives thanks for all the manifestations of the feminine 'genius' which have appeared in the course of history, in the midst of all peoples and nations." (General Audience, February 14, 2007)

FINAL THOUGHTS

In the final analysis, the Catholic Church is unquestionably a force for good in the world—indeed a force for greatness. She always has been; and because the gates of hell can never prevail against her, she always will be. We have Christ's promise.

Yes, the Church has proven herself to be the lifeline of our civilization—and without her—humanity will fail to thrive. As the great defender of the Church, Hilaire Belloc, concluded in Survivals And New Arrivals:

"If the influence of the Church declines, civilization will decline with it... Our civilization is as much a product of the Catholic Church as the vine is the product of a particular climate. Take the vine to another climate and it will die."

May God continue to bless His Church for goodness' sake.

[ealgeone]

My individual salvation, is up to me. Jesus has opened the gates, but will I enter? Have I loved Him? Am I one of those he talks about who will say “Lord, Lord” but didn’t love his sheep.

First...keep the verse in context and you will see who this is addressed to.

21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’ (Matt 7:21-23)

Christ is talking to those who are not His followers. Do His followers practice lawlessness?

The Greek behind the word lawlessness means an utter disregard for God's law.

This does not describe Christians.

If your salvation is up to you then Christ died needlessly on the cross.

In addition, you've just shifted gaining Heaven from faith in Christ to what you do.....it's now about works. This goes completely against the Word and elevates a sinful man's efforts above a sinless Man's sacrifice.

Paul notes in Colossians 2:13-14 exactly what Christ has done for us.

When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Tell me again what you can do that surpasses this sacrifice by Christ?

And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Notice Abraham's faith came before circumcision, the Law, etc. There was nothing he did that earned his salvation.

And continuing today....there is no "work" or deed you can do that will earn your salvation.

We are saved through faith in Christ....not because of any good deed. The good deeds we do, "works", come about as a result of our faith in Christ.

As believers we are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise who is given as a pledge of our inheritance (Eph 1:13-14). The Greek behind this indicates the Holy Spirit is given as earnest money....a pledge of a promise of a future payment.

It is my prayer that you come to faith in Christ so that you may know you have eternal life as He has promised.

[RnMomof7]

Catholic believe this. Faith without works is dead! We do not believe "once saved always saved."

James was written to a converted church...not people seeking to be saved.. He is saying that the proof of our salvation is the works that flow from it... He does not ever say one is saved by your works or failure to do those works will cost you your salvation

Romanists never know if they have done enough , been good enough to be saved ..

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-— I trust NO church! -—

Do you trust the Church that Christ established? Or do you believe that it no longer exists?

“If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus

Why did Jesus give this enormous authority to His Church while He was still with us?

Why did this earthly Authority dissolve?

[RnMomof7]

Great, but Saint Augustine believed in the Real presence. So I would rather go by what he directly said about the Real Presence than what you infer.

NPNF1-7, Tractates on John, Tractate 27, Section 1 And He explained the mode of this bestowal and gift of His, in what manner He gave His flesh to eat, saying, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” The proof that a man has eaten and drank is this, if he abides and is abode in, if he dwells and is dwelt in, if he adheres so as not to be deserted. This, then, He has taught us, and admonished us in mystical words that we may be in His body, in His members under Himself as head, eating His flesh, not abandoning our unity with Him. But most of those who were present, by not understanding Him, were offended; for in hearing these things, they thought only of flesh, that which themselves were. But the apostle says, and says what is true, “To be carnally-minded is death.” [Rom. vii. 6.] The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally.

[ealgeone]

“If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus

STA.....context is key.

15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven (Matthew 18:15-18).

[RnMomof7]

You can read exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist here in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Start at #1322. I was going to copy and paste but it is way to long.

The Catechism is not an infallible document.. it was not written or declared infallible by the magisterium nor the pope.. The catechism is simply a fallible human document subject to change ..

[FourtySeven]

You're right when you say James was written to an already converted (justified) community but that's actually the Catholic claim. No one is justified by any work. Only God's grace justifies. But once one is justified, the path to salvation includes work, and not just any work but work that cooperates with continued grace from God.

[James] addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one .Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save. This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.

So then which is it, faith alone or faith + works? You can't have it both ways.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You say it's bad for Catholics to have a faith + works belief system yet claim the same for yourself. Make up your mind.

[RnMomof7]

Yes, Jesus saved all by his blood, that blood opened the gates of Heaven. That is a fact. Nothing we ever do can change that. Without His death on the cross we could never hope for Heaven.

Yep..exactly what Rome taught me.. Jesus opened the door, now you have to work to get there.. hardly "the good news" is it?

Jesus has opened the gates, but will I enter? Have I loved Him? Am I one of those he talks about who will say “Lord, Lord” but didn’t love his sheep.

Is that supposed to be Biblical ??Because it is not scripture..

Lets look at the scripture

Mat 7:Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 24And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Nothing there about not "loving enough".. .....It is clear..the person being damned LOOKED religious ... he had WORKS... and yet he was lost ....

Christ never knew him ... in spite of all the works..done in the name of Christ..Christ never knew him..

That must be the fear of every Catholic.. that they will stand at the judgement seat and inspire of all their human effort Christ will not know them ...

The real question is do catholics really know Christ.. not the Roman christ that only "makes salvation possible" , not the bread christ or the ritual christ... do they know the Christ that saves to the uttermost

hebrews7:25 Whereby he is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him; always living to make intercession for us.

Not Mary making "intercession" , not dead saints making" intercession" not "priests" making "intercession"...But the final High Priest, the fulfillment of the Old Testament type ...The final sacrifice ... interceding for us before the Father ...

[onyx]

[RnMomof7]

. No one is justified by any work. Only God's grace justifies. But once one is justified, the path to salvation includes work, and not just any work but work that cooperates with continued grace from God.

So one stands justified before God (found not guilty) and still must earn his salvation?? james says no such thing..

READ the scripture.. [James] addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving oneDo you understand what a hollow profession is ? I would say that identifies Romanists that believe Christ saved no one on that cross ..he just made it possible for them to work their way there

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day...

Christ did not add any provision to that promise

[JPII Be Not Afraid]

Mine: Why do I need to listen to you and just who is doing the lecturing?

Yours: I am a Christian, and I know the Lord, that's why you should at least listen long enough to understand what I'm saying, instead of apparently dismissing it out of hand.

This whole post will sound like a lecture, but I know of no other way to put it. I am sorry for this, because I do love my you. You may be a Christian, but you have no authority. A Catholic has one true deposit of faith given by the Holy Spirit to draw from. It has one complete belief that was instituted by Jesus Himself and has been contemplated and meditated on for 2000 years. Some chose to call themselves Catholic and not follow the churches teachings, but that is their problem. We pray for those. Just because you read the bible does not give you an authority to speak truth. The Catholic church does. You have over 30,000 different denominations all saying they have the truth. Each claiming to know what's best. This is why Christ wanted one universal church so there would not be confusion. We have an authority to speak from, an authority that has been guarded and protected from false teachings. This is why, in regards to faith, Catholics will not listen to what you have to say because you have no authority to speak from.

Would you allow your child to go to a Saul Alinsky seminar? No, why because their belief if not truth and what truths they may have are distorted to fit their agenda.

Mine: If you notice all these attacks against the Catholic church are from sola scripture reasoned faiths.

Yours:Did you not just claim in other comment on this thread, that the argument (the apologetic) which you presented was "all scriptural"???

Catholics do not claim to be sola scripture. We have great commentary, traditions, the bible, and the catechism to answer questions in regards to matters of faith.

If myself having tried to get you to think about this issue, is "an attack against the Catholic faith" then it deserves to be attacked.

Yes, I have gotten overly frustrated and lash out. I am sorry for this. I definitely am trying to work on the virtue of patience. But, God has done a great thing for my soul by getting me to read the bible more, our churches teaching more and excellent commentary more. In fact, I have grown even more in love with the Catholic church these past couple of weeks. And the best part, it has given me more people to pray for. So please bring on some more "attacks," Polly, I am ready.

Is the "Eucharistic flesh" (to use the term which you supplied) composed of human flesh (and blood)

Yes, it is true flesh and blood just as he tell us in John 6. That's the literal reading and we are not even sola scripture (sorry cheap shot). It looks like bread and wine, but is truly the flesh and blood of Jesus.

Or else be just yet another Roman Catholic failure (failure to communicate, failure to engage, failure to DO ANYTHING BUT LECTURE!). Well that, and putting the onus entirely upon others whenever the going gets anything like a little bit tough, coupled with response composed mainly of some sort of personal attack, attack, attack upon the person and/or else "faith" of the messenger, instead of open and honest discussion of whatever issue it is at hand. You know, the typical FRoman Catholic FReeRepublic religion forum type of response. After many years of it --- I stay angry at those sort of cheap & shallow forum debate tactics.

Yes, the shallowness of forum debates is ridiculous. But when I say you are acting like a liberal I mean you want me to read everything you have to say about the church, believe it as truth, change my faith, or else I am not being open minded. That is what a liberal wants to you do. We have answers to all of your questions, many try to answer them in a respectful manner, but you don't except our answers. You believe them to be out of right field somewhere and have no truth. We have the Holy Spirit's promise to guard the church against false teachings. We have the one true church, not 30,000 different interpretations. I know and am sorry this upsets you when we answer this way but what else do you want me to say.

Using your sola scripture only and read the following and tell me it is not literal. No commentary, just you and the Holy Spirit.

RSV John 6:

27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."

35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

If you need to bring commentary into it, you do not believe in sola scripture and your interpretation has no authority.

[metmom]

So how many times do you need eat it to "live forever"

If Catholics are living forever by eating, then what's with all the Catholic funerals?

[metmom]

If He was speaking figuratively then why did John 6:66 take place? People don’t usually leave when someone speak figuratively.

They leave because they don't understand spiritual truths.

Jesus also said.....

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life

The flesh is no help at all. Eating Jesus flesh isn't going to do anything for anyone.

[ex-snook]

"The flesh is no help at all. Eating Jesus flesh isn't going to do anything for anyone. "

But you aren't the Pope so I won't believe you, sorry.

[FourtySeven]

READ the scripture.. [James] addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one Do you understand what a hollow profession is ? I would say that identifies Romanists that believe Christ saved no one on that cross ..he just made it possible for them to work their way there

Yes that's right James addresses what a hollow profession of faith is and that is, by definition, NOT a "saving one". And what is this "hollow profession of faith" (i.e., one that does NOT save)? How does James describe it?

One where there are no works present!! Wow, see how easy that is?

Do you understand what a hollow profession is ?

Yeah, I think I do (thanks for the condescending tone). However, if I may indulge in the same (no pun intended) I think *you* should read the Scripture again because clearly *you* don't "...understand what a hollow profession is".

[metmom]

That verse, taken out of context AGAIN, has been corrected many times and since it appears that it has not yet sunk in, I will post the verse IN CONTEXT again.....

This passage is not a blanket order to obey the leadership of any church which claims that it alone is the one true church.

It is at the end of a discourse addressing how to handle disputes in the body.

It lays out very specifically the steps one is to go through in resolving personal conflict within the body.

Matthew 18:15-20 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.

And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

NOWHERE does Jesus command us to "listen to the church".

The comment is *IF he does not listen to the church, then......*

That is a gross misinterpretation of the passage to claim or imply that it is a standing order of Jesus to listen to the Catholic church.

The clear meaning is here for everyone to see. It's dealing with disputes among believers, not absolute authority given to *the Church*.

[metmom]

You aren’t either so it works both ways.

[RnMomof7]

14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (1 Cor 2)

[impimp]

1 Corinthians 11:27-29New International Version (NIV)

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Please interpret these verses for me.

[FourtySeven]

Amen to that.