DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

You can thank the protestant reformation for these changes in the Catholic Church.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Thomas,
Changes? The only thing the protestant revolution changed is the number of Christians who don't attend the mass. You'll have to fill me in on what you're trying to say, but just to let you know: the mass has always had the same basic structure. There have been a few changes to texts, languages, etc. but nothing substantial. In fact, the book of Revelation in the Bible is structured to mimic the Catholic mass - which is why so many misinterpret it.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Please don't tell me that you are suggesting that John's Apocalypse was composed with the Catholic Mass as its model - or even its backdrop.

I would agree with you that the Mass and Revelation reflect each other theologically. But from a historical perspective, you're going to be swimming against the stream to make a case that Revelation has the Mass in mind. Far better to suggest, and rightly I think, that the theological texture of the Catholic Mass evolved with John's Apocalypse in mind.

Peace.

Jay,

Before the Reformation:

1. Laymen were strongly discouraged from the reading the Bible. Thus there were no "Catholic Scripture Scholars" outside of the Church itself. If you did read and somehow interpreted the Bible outside the official church's stand on a subject, you were excommunicated as a heretic. Thus there was no real dissenting opinions in which to raise a debate. This stifled meanful discourse.

2. Most of the time laymen did not know what the Priest was saying as the Priest's reading and teaching was not in the layman's tongue. This was a much bigger deal than you make it sound. To most during the middle ages, mass was simply a meaningless ritual conducted in a foreign language. The congregation never really understood what was being read to them from scripture, even if the structure then was basically the same as it is today.

3. The Bible was not written in the tongues of the congregation. In fact it was forbidden to possess a Bible in one's native tongue. (Why would the Church do this, I wonder?)

Only after being challenged by the Protestants did the Church change their stance of these items.

How in the world did most laymen know about what the scripture said before the Reformation? They couldn't or didn't read it themselves, and when it was read to them it wasn't in a language they understood. And the Church not only allowed this ignorance to happened, but encouraged it for hundreds of years, effectively keeping millions of people in the dark. Ritualism not the Gospel was practiced and preached. This is one of my biggest problems with the Catholic Church and one of the many reasons why I believe it is not the true church. A true church doesn't hide the truth, but proclaims it and makes it readily available to the masses. The Church had a unique opportunity during the middle ages to educate it's congregation through literacy programs, and let them read the Scriptures for themselves and grow in a relationship with Christ in that way. What better tool to teach the masses how to live and how to have that relationship than through the daily reading and study of the Scriptures? They had an incredible opportunity to reach down and help the congregation in any number of ways. Instead the Church was more focused on maintaining the status quo and it's power and wealth. It really blew it.

By the way, in your church, does the Priest explain the scripture and attempt to make an application to the congregation's life, or just read it and go on? My pastor recently completed a series on the book of James. He spent about six months worth of sermons on it. I highly doubt that you get that kind of meat in your mass. We also have the benefit of thinking and studying the scripture for ourselves and disagreeing with the Pastor, not just regurgitating the Church's official interpretation. Why is it that every ex-Catholic that I've met has become an ex-Catholic when they started to actually read the scriptures. Why is it that almost every Catholic I know has never actually opened up a Bible much less do an indepth study of it. Maybe it's the Church's attitude about scripture reading and doing daily devotionals? HMMMM . . .
Outside the handful of verses that you use to attempt to defend the Church's position on this blog, do you really have as good a feel for the rest of the Scripture, as you did before becoming a Catholic? Don't answer that. Just something to contemplate. One last thing, I was completely turned off by a number of things in Scott Haun's testimony one of these items was the following:

"***Becomes Pastor of a Church in Virginia***

The phone rang. A [Protestant] church in Virginia, a well-known church that I had heard a lot of good about called me up and said, "Would you consider coming down to candidate for the pastorate here?" This meant preaching a trial sermon, leading a Bible study, interviewing with the elders who ran the session. I said, "Sure." I went down, preached a sermon, led a Bible study, met with the session. They said, "That was
great; we want you here. In fact we'll pay you well enough so that you can study at least 20 hours a week in Scripture and theology. We want
you to preach, however, at least 45 minutes each Sunday morning to open up for us the Word." 45 minutes! Can you imagine what a priest would get
if he preached for 45 minutes? The next week that sanctuary and the whole Church would be empty. Here they were asking me to preach at least 45 minutes. I said, "If you insist, you know, twist my arm. Sure." And they said, "We want you to immerse us in the Word of God," and so I began."

Do you see the difference in the attitude between the typical Catholic and Protestant congregation here? One hungers for the truth, the other hungers to get in and out as quickly as possible.

No, God had a reason for allowing the Reformation to occur.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

P.S. By the way, welcome back. I was getting bored by constantly agreeing with you on the abortion and Kerry issues. ;)

Thomas...

A couple of questions:

Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass? Have you ever witnessed a group of Catholics spending hours praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament? Have you ever been to a Catholic Bible study? What about spent time in a Catholic high school learning about Scripture, Church history, and morality with young people? I would suggest you do these things before you make your accusations.

Why would God allow the Reformation to occur? The main results of the Reformation have been schism and disunity. How many Protestant denominations are there now? 33,000 last I heard. And something like 5 new denominations each week. Jesus prayed that we may all be one. Why would God allow (or sanction as you seem to imply) the Reformation to occur when it has brought about such disunity? A belief system based on a logical fallicy (as Sola Scriptura is) cannot hold itself up, as can quite obviously be seen in Protestantism. Christ created a Church....ONE Church, and prayed that we may all be One, as He is with the Father.

Christ said that we may not enter the Kingdom unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood. He promised that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church to ALL Truth. That is what the Holy Spirit has been doing within the Catholic Church over the last 2,000 years, leading us, teaching us about Truth. Study up on it. Read and research it honestly and openly. You will be profoundly amazed at what you find!!

Nickie.

"Please don't tell me that you are suggesting that John's Apocalypse was composed with the Catholic Mass as its model - or even its backdrop."

Actually, The Book of Revelations was composed based on John's vision of worship in Heaven. The Mass is modeled after that vision of Heaven, a reflection on earth as it were. Historical research into the writings of the early Church Fathers shows this was commonly understood by the first Christians. This is the basis for The Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn which explains it very well. However, you do have to be familiar with the Catholic Mass to see it easily.

Nickie,

You stated:“Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass? Have you ever witnessed a group of Catholics spending hours praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament? Have you ever been to a Catholic Bible study? What about spent time in a Catholic high school learning about Scripture, Church history, and morality with young people? I would suggest you do these things before you make your accusations.”

First of all my comments were based on an observation of one of the Catholic Church’s chief apologist, not my own. What further turned me off from Mr. Hahn was that he seemed to be actually proud that Catholics behaved in this way. This is not what I would consider a selling point of Catholism that should be trumpeted to Protestants. Secondly, yes I have been to a Catholic mass or two and Hahn’s observations seem to be most accurate. As to the rest, my comments were geared toward mass because that was the issue that Jay had raised.

You said: “Why would God allow the Reformation to occur? The main results of the Reformation have been schism and disunity. How many Protestant denominations are there now? 33,000 last I heard. And something like 5 new denominations each week. Jesus prayed that we may all be one. Why would God allow (or sanction as you seem to imply) the Reformation to occur when it has brought about such disunity? A belief system based on a logical fallicy (as Sola Scriptura is) cannot hold itself up, as can quite obviously be seen in Protestantism. Christ created a Church....ONE Church, and prayed that we may all be One, as He is with the Father.”

I have heard these numbers on Protestant denominations again and again on this blog. I think that they are highly overstated. While Protestants differ in many areas that are up for dispute, we are remarkably united in our belief on the key central issues of salvation. I’ve read a number of entries in this blog and in other places from other Catholics and to say that Catholics are united in their beliefs is an absolute fallacy. They are as disunified as Protestants. By the way Protestantism brought us much more than disunity etc. It brought us out of the middle ages, and it's principals are what founded this nation in which you are free to be practicing Catholics. The fruits of Protestantism is far greater than what you give it credit for. One of the other things that struck me from Scott Hahn's testimony was who it was that reached out to him initially and brought him to Christ. A Protestant organization. Would Hahn have ever become a Christian if there had been no Protestant organization to bring him in? Does the Catholic Church even have outreach programs for the lost and dying in this world? Christ did create one church, and where I believe that many Catholics belong to that one church, the institution of the Catholic Church itself is not that church. Christ did pray for us to be one. Why would he only pray for this and not command it? Why would he even need to pray for this, if he knew that the church that he would be establishing would never split or be disunified? This whole line of questions leads me to believe that He left no one true church organization dispensing infallible truth, and everyone who didn't belong to this church was not a true follower. If this had been the case, there would be no need to pray this prayer. Yes we need to work toward unity, but not at the expense of the truth of the Gospel. How is the belief of Sola Scriptura any more a logical fallacy than the belief in Tradition, and the Church’s infallibility? Don’t bother answering that question, as Joe and I have already gone round and round on that one.

You said: “Christ said that we may not enter the Kingdom unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood. He promised that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church to ALL Truth. That is what the Holy Spirit has been doing within the Catholic Church over the last 2,000 years, leading us, teaching us about Truth. Study up on it. Read and research it honestly and openly. You will be profoundly amazed at what you find!!”

I have been studying and reading and will continue to do so. What I have found has not impressed me in the least. Do you deny my first three points above? These are historical facts.

Grace, Peace and Truth,

Thomas

On another note...I have been to Catholic Masses being that my cousins in Mexico are RC. 45 minutes is what a mass lasts. Same goes for masses held here in NY. My church Jay, will probably go thru the Bible(not in order) yearly. In addition, we have a Bible school. Our services are usually scheduled for 11am to 1pm...but we almost always go over. 1 hour of service is dedicated to praise and worship of our Lord, the other hour is dedicated to the word. As for comparing the OT and the NT. Our pastor recently showed the prophecy of the temple in the OT(i.e. the veil, the holies of the holies) related to Christ.
So yes, my church does an excellent job of thoroughly going through the Scriptures. I can say that while not all, but a majority of our youth at our church knows a good amount of Scripture, just by sitting in service.

God Bless

On a side note:

Church servive on Sunday whether it be Catholic or Protestant should not be the whole of your Christian walk. It meant as a time to come together. We should reading, praying and practicing our faith daily. The reason the early church didn't need to practice the sabbath is because they did lived life dedicated the God and everyday was the Sabbath.

As for the above CC vs Protestant. I think some the post/comments can be a little imflamatory and personal. Today in modern times there are people on both sides who study and the Word as there are many who don't. I don't think the post was necessary, I know its your site. Reason why Protestants think that Catholics don't know their bible is becasue when we talk them about the things of the Lord they don't know the references to what we are talking about. The same can also apply to the many protestants who don't read either.

Stan and all,

If I have come across personal or inflamitory, I apologize, but the facts remain . . .

Grace, Peace, and Truth

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

I was raised a Catholic growing up in the late
fifties and sixties. The mass was still in Latin
when I first started going as a child. I attended Public school but I also attended catecism and I made my communion and Confirmation
in the RCC. You are dead on correct in your assessment of the church pre vatican II. I left
the RCC in the early eighties and attended various demominational and Non denominational Protestant churches for about 20 years.

I am back attending mass. But I still have a lot of questions about the RCC. A priest who is the
Principal of a large HS in the Chicago area admitted to me that the RCC dropped the ball
and practically banned reading the bible because
of the Reformation. It is a relatively new Phenomenon that the RCC is promoting the reading
of the bible. Maybe in the last 10 or fifteen
years. Anyone who tells you different is lying.

The homilies the priest gives are no where near
as in depth as ones I have heard in the protestant churches. I learned about the bible
from a protestant neighbor,. Bless her soul.
I have a right relationship with Jesus because of her, not the RCC.

The Catholic online encyclopedia states that the
Mass is an un-bloody sacrifice. We are to eat of His Body and His blood in rememberance of Him.
We are NOT to re-sacrifice Him at every Mass.
If it is NOT a Sacrifice then why does the priest
ask God to accept the sacrifice at his hands ?

The RCC says that the Host and the wine is Jesus.
What sacrifice is the priest asking God to accept if not Jesus. That sacrifice was accepted
on Calvary. We do not need to ask God to accept
it over and over again.

The people who run this BLOG may write me off
as lost or uninformed or misguided.. I have been
in both camps. You are correct Thomas, there is
no true denominational church. I left the protestant churches because the pastors were kings of their congregations wanting to be served rather than being servants. There aren't
many true servants in either camp IMHO.

I am now fifty. I am not college educated as some
on this BLOG appear to be. I have been studying
the scriptures and early church history for the
past 20 plus years. The protestants have one
version of History and the RCC has another version. Who is telling the truth ? They both
can not be correct . I am not bitter against either camp. I don't have a vendetta against either camp.. I am searching for GOD's truth.
Not man's truth or Man's traditions..

I was just reading a timeline if History put out by a Catholic website.. You had at least two anti Popes and Popes that would reverse the other Popes edicts on doctrine... There are problems in both camps.. Let us stop pointing fingers and saying my church is better than your church and use the time to get in a right relationship with the Father and His son... Scripture is pretty clear about how you can do that...

In Search Of GOD's Truth.
Grace and Peace ,

Clem

Clem,

Where ever you may go, whether it be a protestant church, or a catholic church....just compare what is being taught by whatever institution that you attend to the Scriptures. See if it measures up or not. Its that simple contrary to the beliefs of some on this board.

God Bless

Clem,

I would add this:

Find a place where

a) You can actually serve others. You can learn so much more by actually serving than being served,

b) You are being weekly fed the truth of the scriptures from the pulpit,

c) You are being constantly challenged to grow in your relationship with Christ by the leadership and by others in the congregation, and

d) You are constantly challenged to not only read and study the scriptures but apply what you learn to your life. Otherwise knowledge just puffs you up.

If you can get all of this from a Catholic Church, then go for it. If not then I am positive there are Protestant Churches in your area where you can.

Grace, Peace, and Truth

Thomas

P.S. Sorry Jay and Joe. I don't place a high emphasis on the rituals of the sacraments. I believe that scripture is clear that what God wants from us is a relationship not a ritual.

Thomas;

I'm just going to respond to a couple of things you said as I'm sure you have discussed most of these arguement in depth.

Firstly, you said, "Does the Catholic Church even have outreach programs for the lost and dying in this world?"

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Please look into this. The Catholic Church caters to the poor, the lost, the sick, the dying in such immense ways, it is truly amazing. Look into the Catholic missions, the nuns, brothers, priests and laity who devote their entire lives to helping the poor, the lost, the dying of this world. I'm afraid, my friend, that this is one area you CANNOT say the Catholic Church has neglected!

As for logical fallicy....there is a simple equation for this. Sola Scriptura states that all that is needed for salvation is contained in Sacred Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not found in Sacred Scripture. This flawed arguement cannot stand, which is why there are so many different Protestant denominations. Even if the number 33,000 is an over-estimate, we all know that there are at least hundreds of denominations. This is disunity which comes about from something based on a logical error.

As for the length of various services, etc....Yes, the Catholic Mass usually lasts about an hour or so. This is often longer during certain feast days in the Church, or in certain cultures, etc (places like the Phillipines, or in certain African countries, Masses last much longer!). However, the length of the 'service' should not be what is important here. Catholics worship Christ in the Eucharist, when He makes Himself present to us in a very very wonderful and intimate way. Music and singing and such are a part of the Mass, but are only periphery to the awesome Miracle that happens at EACH Mass. Many Protestants don't understand this, and so come down hard on Catholics for the length (and/or lack of 'praise') that goes on during the Catholic Mass. Yet, this is the core, (the "Source and Summit" as JPII puts it) of the Catholic Faith, which when understood, shows the immense beauty and Truth of the Church.

Graces and blessings,
Nickie.

Hi Clem;

For information about the Mass as a sacrifice, check out these sites:

1) http://www.cin.org/kc50-3.html
2) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

I pray that you will find God's Truth
Nickie.

Nickie,

Thank you. I went to both sites. Here is where the
confusion comes in for me. If the RCC said that the Mass is a re-enactment or a rememberance of the last supper, I could accept that. But the RCC says that the Mass is an un-bloody Sacrifice. Christ is continuing the Sacrifice He made on the cross. He said that it is finished . The way I understand scripture He does not need to continue that sacrifice because that sacrifice is finished. That Sacrifice covers sins Past present and future. There is no need for any further sacrifices.

Scripture says and it is even recited at Mass that He is sitting at the right hand of the Father. Sitting down shows that He is not continuing the
sacrifice in heaven.

Nicki answer me this question. When did the liturgy of the mass start? What year? It did not
start in the first century. There were no priests
in the clerical sense that we have today then.
The early church met in houses. They broke bread and sang praises to God. They did not worship the
liturgical mass you have today. One time line I have for the beginning of the Mass is the Year
1094 AD. If you have a different date please let me know... But it wasn't in the first centery or even the second century church. The Liturgical mass celebrated now was not celebrated then.

You say that the Mass is the core and summit of the Catholic faith. So without the mass there is no core to your faith? Then what was the core of
the Catholic church before there was a Liturgical
mass? I will tell you what your core should be,
Christ. He is the core of everything. He does not
require rituals He wants a relationship ..

Grace and Peace,

Clem

Clem,
There is an old saying about Protestant churches they don't a Pope that have hundreds of Popes. A lot of the things we critisize the RCC for we do also. We have our traditions and pecularties and we can also place Man before G-d.

Nickie:

You said: “Firstly, you said, "Does the Catholic Church even have outreach programs for the lost and dying in this world?” Whoa, whoa, whoa. Please look into this. The Catholic Church caters to the poor, the lost, the sick, the dying in such immense ways, it is truly amazing. Look into the Catholic missions, the nuns, brothers, priests and laity who devote their entire lives to helping the poor, the lost, the dying of this world. I'm afraid, my friend, that this is one area you CANNOT say the Catholic Church has neglected!”

What I meant by my statement was more than feeding and clothing the poor, and taking care of the sick and dying. The present Catholic Church does this admirably. What I meant was, does it seek as it main goal to fulfill the great commission? “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” This is what I meant by the people who are lost and dying. I could be wrong here, but what I see is a Church that cares more for the body (which is important as well) than it does the soul.

You said: “As for logical fallicy....there is a simple equation for this. Sola Scriptura states that all that is needed for salvation is contained in Sacred Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not found in Sacred Scripture. This flawed arguement cannot stand, which is why there are so many different Protestant denominations. Even if the number 33,000 is an over-estimate, we all know that there are at least hundreds of denominations. This is disunity which comes about from something based on a logical error.”

I really don’t want to go into this again right now. Sufficient to say that Sola Scriptura can be logically deduced from the evidence we have, and that I don’t think that Protestants have ever said that the belief in Sola Scriptura itself is necessary for salvation. You whole error in logic argument goes away with this understanding. Maybe I’ll go into this again later . . .

You said: “As for the length of various services, etc....Yes, the Catholic Mass usually lasts about an hour or so. This is often longer during certain feast days in the Church, or in certain cultures, etc (places like the Phillipines, or in certain African countries, Masses last much longer!). However, the length of the 'service' should not be what is important here. Catholics worship Christ in the Eucharist, when He makes Himself present to us in a very very wonderful and intimate way. Music and singing and such are a part of the Mass, but are only periphery to the awesome Miracle that happens at EACH Mass. Many Protestants don't understand this, and so come down hard on Catholics for the length (and/or lack of 'praise') that goes on during the Catholic Mass. Yet, this is the core, (the "Source and Summit" as JPII puts it) of the Catholic Faith, which when understood, shows the immense beauty and Truth of the Church.”

I am not attempting to make light of the sacraments here, but it is sad that the Church sees itself as mainly a great dispensing ground of grace through the sacraments to the faithful, and everything else the Church does is completely secondary. The Pope says that the source or summit of the Catholic Faith is the Eucharist. I am sorry but the scripture says something completely and fundamentally different. The church’s main goal should be to show a rebellious and lost people the way to be made right with their Creator, (ie through the preaching the gospel) have a close personal relationship with Him, and to teach them how to constantly die to self and live in such a way that will to please Him (ie through the making of disciples). No matter how badly we want to box this up nice and tidy and place a pretty bow on top, this cannot be and is not done, regardless of the time spent, by a weekly ritual. Nor is it done by any other kind of ritual. It saddens me to think that there are millions of people whose hearts are not changed, but think that because they have done some external ritual, that they are somehow mystically made right with God. It is your heart that God is after, not your rituals! Time after time God has made this clear to us, and we still stubbornly refuse to see it. Psalms 51:16-17 “You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you will not despise.” Matthew 22: 35-38 “One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.”” It is not the external things we do, it is the internal state of our heart. See Matthew 15:1-20. This message is so clear in Scripture and it is sad, but not surprising, that the Catholic Church has missed it. I think we as fallen humans automatically tend to put things down as tasks, then check them off, and then go on our merry way completely unchanged by what we have just done. For Catholics it is - Went to mass. Check. Went to Confession. Check. Ok now I’m good to live my life how I want to live it. For Protestants it is – Read my Bible. Check. Went to Church. Check. Ok now I’m good to live my life how I want to live it. I believe that God is crying out to us, “Please stop it! What I want from you is not necessarily all this external stuff. What I mainly want is you to have a personal relationship with me. I created this external stuff so that it will give you something tangible and to help strengthen that relationship, but I want the relationship first and formost. I want to show myself to you. I want you to know me in a deep and intimate way. Please place your life in my hands and allow me to use it for my kingdom. It will go so much better for you if you do, both now, and in the life to come.”

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

I just came back from two months travelling in Europe. I took with me a small copy of the Psalms/New Testament to read on my own. To fulfill my obligation to God (that is, to love Him) I attended mass in French, Spanish, Czech, Polish, Slovene, Croatian and Italian. I understood not a word but I knew exactly what was going on and was able to participate during the most important parts of the mass - the consecration and the priest's communion - and recite the key prayers. I could also look up the Gospel readings which are the same all over the world and read along in English if I so desired. I couldn't help but wonder how protestants in a strange land get by if they can't find congregations which speak their language.

Thomas,

I just wanted to clarify my statement about
servanthood. Most of the protestant churches
I attended I did serve. I was in the music ministry and also was on some church boards.
You are correct it is better to serve than
to be served. Jesus was the perfect example
to everyone that even though He deserved
service, He humbled Himself and served His
disciples and His fellow man.

My point is that many in both camps who are Priests and pastors are like the Pharasees putting themselves above the flocks they are
supposed to serve.

Thanks for the good advice in your post to me.

Grace & Peace to You.

Clem

Nickie,

I stand corrected about the date the term "Mass"
turned up. According to the On-line encyclopedia
at new advent (A Catholic Website )the first reference to the term Mass was by St. Ambrose in about 385 AD. My date of 1094 was off. Sorry for the inaccuracy. That still shows that it was
almost the vey late 3rd century before there was some sort of Liturgical service called the Mass.

I wish the RCC would put out a book or something on line that gives a time line for when various practices and doctrines and dogma became official in the RCC. If you know of such a time
line please point me to it.

I want to know such things like when the clerical Priesthood began.When the doctrine of
the immaculate conception was made official,
when the veneration of Mary began, when the
doctrine of purgatory came into being and when the rosary started and when was the title Pope first used? I have had trouble finding a Historical time line of development for the Catholic church. Any help would be appreciated.

Grace Peace,

Clema

Grace and Peace,

Clem

Clem,
I've been busy lately, but I'll work on putting up posts addressing these subjects - and maybe creating a timeline that will work as well.

Also, it's important to note that the date of 385 A.D. means the term "Mass" predated the compilation of the Bible and the doctrine of the Trinity.

God bless,
Jay

Thomas;

I agree with some of what you said in your post. It is true that Christ wants a relationship with us, and that as weak and fickle human beings, it is sad that so many of us are so quick to forget that a relationship with Christ requires our entire lives, our entire beings.

However, by calling the Eucharist a mere 'ritual', you show your lack of understanding of what the Eucharist truly is. Christ said,
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." John 6: 54-56.

The Eucharist is not some ritual. The Eucharist is the "Source and Summit" of the Catholic Faith because the Eucharist IS JESUS; His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

Stop and imagine this for a moment. You are sitting a your computer at work, or reading the newspaper at home, and Jesus comes to visit you IN THE FLESH! He comes down and says, "Hello Thomas...I love you. I have come to chat with you to show you how much I love you." Could you imagine what your reaction would be? Would you not fall on your knees, perhaps weep, pledge your entire being to Him Who just visited you and loves you? It would be an AWESOME experience!!

This is what happens at EVERY MASS!!! Jesus becomes present in a very special and real way! It is HIM who is there saying to us that He wants such an intimate relationship with us, that He wants our flesh to become ONE WITH HIS FLESH!! He wants to remain with us not only spiritually, but PHYSICALLY as well.

The Eucharist, then is no mere ritual. It is the 'Source and Summit' of the Catholic Faith because Christ is the Source and Summit of the Catholic Faith, and the Eucharist IS Christ. You speak of God wanting a relationship with us.... how very true and how very beautiful! How much closer a relationship can one have with another than to become ONE FLESH with Him? It is so awesome and so wonderful, I often find myself weeping while in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

It is true and it saddens my heart to no end that many Catholics do not fully understand this and receive the Eucharist in a haphazard, uncaring way. Yet, God loves us all, and continues to make Himself present to us despite our human weakness and lack of understanding. I have tears in my eyes just thinking about this and how wonderful God is and how much He loves us by being so intimate with us.

God bless you,
Nickie.

Hi Thomas;

I forgot in my last post that there were a couple of other things you mentioned in yours that I wanted to address.

You said, "but it is sad that the Church sees itself as mainly a great dispensing ground of grace through the sacraments to the faithful, and everything else the Church does is completely secondary."

We come to know and have a relationship with God through His Grace. It is His Grace that gives us our being, our ability to know and love Him, and our ability to have a relationship with Him. Therefore, nothing can be secondary to building up our relationship with Him through the sacraments which provide us with food for our souls and an ever-closer relationship to HIM. I would urge you to read further into what the sacraments truly ARE...not merely what they look like from the outside, but what they truly ARE! God makes Himself present to us through each and every sacrament. This cannot be taken lightly. For more info about the sacraments, see this website:
http://www.cin.org/kc50-2.html

Also, you said, "What I meant was, does it seek as it main goal to fulfill the great commission? “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” This is what I meant by the people who are lost and dying. I could be wrong here, but what I see is a Church that cares more for the body (which is important as well) than it does the soul."

I'm afraid you are incorrect here. The Catholic Church exists in almost every nation on Earth. There are entire nations (e.g. The Phillipines, Malta, countries in South America to name but a few) which are considered "Catholic nations". The Faith did not just spread to virtually all nations on Earth by itself. There are and have been those going and teaching the Faith ALL OVER THE WORLD since the beginning. She teaches Her Truth to all those who seek it, and holds fast to the morals and statutes laid down in Her Jewish heritage, and by Christ Himself. Please read further into the spiritual work that the Catholic Church does. It is too immense for me to go into in this post.

My impression is that your view of the Catholic Church rests on those Catholics you have come into contact with in your specific area. Please don't forget that there are over a billion Catholics the world-over. Although you might not be able to witness all the incredible work the Catholic Church does (both spiritually and corporally) specifically where you live, it doesn't mean that the Church neglects these areas. As I said above, I urge you to learn more about what the Catholic Church does.

God bless,
Nickie.

“Actually, The Book of Revelations was composed based on John's vision of worship in Heaven. The Mass is modeled after that vision of Heaven, a reflection on earth as it were. Historical research into the writings of the early Church Fathers shows this was commonly understood by the first Christians. This is the basis for The Lamb's Supper by Scott Hahn which explains it very well. However, you do have to be familiar with the Catholic Mass to see it easily.”

Yes indeed Julie D. – we are in agreement. What you have illuminated above is a far cry from the idea that John’s apocalypse was composed with the Mass in mind.

Jay, AD 385 may mean that the word “Mass” predates the Church’s doctrinal articulation of the Trinity, but it does NOT mean that it pre-dates the composition of the NT, and not even its “compilation” as you put it. In AD 367 St. Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter indicates that all 27 writings of the NT were considered sacred scripture at that time (other writings were as well, but in other geographical areas).
Grace and Peace!

Jack,
St. Athanasius' Letter wasn't binding on the Church. So yes, he got the Scripture correct (I'll take your word that he was exactly correct), but it wasn't until 395 A.D. that the canon was officially confirmed by the Church.

Your argument is like me suggesting that Joe Blow wrote down the correct Scriptures in 150 A.D. so it was "official." Yes St. Athansius had more authority, but he was not officially declaring the canon of Scripture for the Church. Would you agree that the Council in 395 could have chosen different books (leaving aside the fact that the defined Scripture is authored by the Holy Spirit and the rest is not). Did they have the authority to?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I am making no claim that Athanasius’, nor anyone else’s “canon” (and there were plenty) prior to AD 395 was binding on the Church.

Indeed, the council could have chosen different books, but they probably would not have. The formation of the NT canon was as much an organic process as it was a definitive/binding statement of what constituted “sacred scripture.” In essence, by AD 395 it was obvious to everyone involved which writings were to be/should be included in the binding canon, that is, those books which have more than any others – up ‘til now (395!) – spoken/speak “the Word on target.” It was simply the case that Athanasius, as well as the majority of Christians at the time, already recognized the 27 writings as “the Word on target” – binding or not – as early as 367, and probably earlier than that.

Peace!

Hey Everyone,

I'm brand new to this site, and it's awesome, just to let you know. A little background opn my vantage point on the issue, I am a Christian, and that is the only term I use to describe my faith. I have no denomination. However, I have done, and am currently still, researching many of the donominations as well as their theologies and histories. From 6-12th grade I attended Catholic Schools, though i am not, nor was ui ever, Catholic. So I've got a pretty good vantage point on all the dialouge going on here.

So here's what i wanted to say. The Catholic Church is an excellent source for the Social aspect of the Gospel. their social work around the world is a great testament to the love of Christ. And I'm sure any protestant would agree with me, it is by love that God has called us to reach the world. Just look at people such as Mother Theresa. Her acts of service did more for the spiritual well being of India than any Sermon ever would have done. And that is true of many countries in the world where the focus is communal, instead of the individual focus in American society. Sermons focus more on personal well being, but many countries in the world live with a communal mindset, making the Catholic emphasis on the social aspect of the Gospel much more effective outreaches.

However, having gone through Catholic schools, and being raised by a former Catholic, I do well understand the general lack of understanding of the Scriptures of the Catholic Church. As a Freshman in High School, I had a better grasp of my theology and its scriptural roots than any lay religion teacher in my school, and was an intellectual match for the priests concerning the topics being covered in the classes. The truth is, while the Mass is based on the scripture, and contains scripture. The focus is on the celebration of the Eucharest, which is a dispensation of grace. A for the belief on transubstantiation, I encourage the Catholics to look at the exegesis of the Catholic church on the scriptures it claims as authoritative on the subject. The fact is, Scripture on the whole supports the Lord's Supper to be takern in rememberence of the act done on the cross, and in doing so, symbolicaly "eating of my flesh and drinking of my blood."

But back to the scripture in the mass, hearing it once does little as far as learning it and memorizing it, or at least getting a good idea as to where the passages can be formed.

Many protestant churches, however, while sometimes good at exegeting a passage, often fail to build the case well. They are often more inclined to prooftexting based on a topical series. Drawing a verse from here and there and forming an opinion without doing a hermeneutical exegesis does not do justice to the Scripture, and can profane the Word and will of God. Imagine the reader who decides to find the will of God by opening to two random verses. He reads "Judas went and hung himself (slightly paraphrsed)" and "Go you therefore and do likewise (not paraphrased)." Well, sorry, this life is over.

What I think we need is a working out of both nds of the spectrum. All Potestants love the verse in Galatians, "For it is by Grace that you have been saved, through faith, and this, not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no man may boast." but if you read on, Paul explains that this is the reason he preaches to them, and the reason that the church was comminssioned to be the body of Christ to all the nations. We are save to do works! and so while i agree that all christians should have a firm understanding of the scriptures, what good is it if the only thing a believer does is tosses 10% of their income into a basket each week? We must all realize that scripture points us first to God, then to others, and finally to ourselves. You may have heard the acrostic JOY, Jesus, Others, Yourself. That's what it's all about people. American Prtestants are good with the J and Y, Catholics with the O and Y. We all need to get good at the JOY. I look forward to hearing from all of you.

~Erik

PS I recommend you all read the book Joshua by Joseph Girzone, a Catholic priest who talks in depth about the problems with the leadership in Catholic and Protestant churches by way of a fictional narrative.

Erik,

Where I am afraid you will get blasted by the Catholics on this site, I agree with just about everything that you have stated. I would like to add that there are many Protestant church's which do an excellent job of expository preaching. (Mine being one of them.);)

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

Erik,
I recommend you take a look at this article on the reality of the Eucharist. You suggest that Catholics do a better job with the O and the Y, but not the J? We're the only ones actually obeying Christ's command to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Scripture is very clear on this - read the other article and let me know what you think.

Thomas - where have we "blasted" you? In fact, I think what is actually happening is every now and then you go nuts and blast us with a buch of historical falsehoods.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I will admit that I "blast" from time to time. It wasn't meant to be a negative term. I think that others on this blog and your writing style are similar to my own . . . at times caustic and confrontational. Like I said none of that is necessarily negative . . . at least not from my perspective. Sometimes it is warranted.

As far as my above comments being historical falsehoods, please point out which above facts are incorrect.

Grace, Peace and Truth

Thomas

P.S. When are you guys going to get back to posting regularly? How is Joe and his family? Doing well I hope.

Hey Jay,

Interesting article. However I disagree with the conclusions for sevral reasons. the argument seems to focus mainly on the passage in John 6. However, upon reading the text, I believe you passed over some very key words. Jesus says in John 6:61-64, "Does this offend you? What if you see the see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." This is followed by the clarification, "For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and would betray him." First of all, when looking at Hebrew styles of teaching, as well as Jesus' own clarification, the words are spoken in spirit, and so can be taken metaphorically, just as the "food" Jesus had in the Wilderness. Sorry, I don't have time to fully explain it, time crunch.

Also, Jesus was a one time sacrifice. Old Testament Sacrifices were a new lamb every time. So too, unlevened bread at passover is in rememberance of mana, which it is not. So too, our bread is not physical, but is a representation of his physical body. Finally, Check in Romans 5:12. It is his blood that cleanses us, but in the end, only the resurrection saves us. Without the resurrection, the blood means nothing. Sorry, I'm outta time, if you're confused, I'm sorry, tell me and I'll write when I have more time. God Bless.

~Erik

Erik,
So a question: If Jesus was speaking metaphorically, why did he let so many people essentially condemn themselves to hell over a misunderstanding? Keep reading after verse 64; all of the disciples leave Christ except for the twelve - and clearly they did it because they believed Jesus was not speaking metaphorically. If your interpretation is correct wouldn't Jesus have said, "Wait, guys! I just want you to eat a little bread every now and then"? But He didn't - Jesus let them leave because their assumption was correct.

Also, study the use of the Greek word translated as "eat" in this passage. Each time it is used by Christ it gets stronger and less metaphorical. The last time Christ says "eat", He's using the Greek word that means "gnaw". In other words, Christ is getting more graphic in order to get His point across: we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. I recommend you read this article for a more indepth look at the appropriate Scripture.

Finally, Catholics also believe Christ's sacrifice was once and for all. The Eucharist is not a resacrifice of Christ, but a participation in the singular event of Christ's sacrifice. And remember the Last Supper: Christ didn't say, "This is like my body . . . " He said, "This is my body . . ."

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I know Catholics believe the sacrifice was once and for all. My point was that in the old Testament there was a new lamb sacrificed each time because it was not a perfect sacrifice. They needed to have a new sacrifice each time. But when something did not need to be repeated, but remembered, then it was remembered with something representing the actual event. This can be seen with the Passover, a symbol of the time spent in Egypt and the Israelites' deliverence, the Feast of Tents/Tabernacles, a symbol of their time wandering in the wilderness. The miracle was never re-performed.

As to Christ becoming more graphic each time, I agree, he did become more graphic each time. However, Jesus was a teacher in the same line as a Rabbi, and so his teaching would have followed Rabbinic patterns. As such, the very wide use of hyperbole, as well as using absolutes for relative comparisons, was common in his teaching. And saying that he would have stopped them from walking away from him because of his hard teachings does not mesh with how Jesus acted throughout his ministry. For instance, Matt. 8:18-22, or his encounter with the rich young ruler. Jesus was not afraid of letting "bandwagon fans" leave his followers. remember it says "For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and would betray him." Jesus could see the hearts of man. He was not going to try and coerce someone into believing in him by making his words light. But those who did believe in him, although likely confused at the time, stayed with him because they trusted him. by the way, I was responding to that article when i wrote earlier. Sorry, can't write more, gotta go. God Bless.

~Erik

Jay,

Just a question. You say that the greek used
left no question that Jesus was telling them
to literally eat His flesh and drink His Blood.

So when the apostles partook they were actually
eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus?
This was prior to the crucifiction. What benefit
would it have been to eat the body and blood of
Christ before He made the sacrifice.? So doesn't
it make more sense that this was just meant as
symbolic more the literal ?

So you are then saying that Jesus meant literally
if Your eyes caused you to sin to literally cut
your eyes out or to literally cut off your hand
if it caused you to sin. Since most sin starts
in our minds should we literally cut out our
brains ????

The jewish style of writing used a lot of imagery
and Metaphors.. Would you deny that?

When reading scripture the key is to know when
a writer is speaking literally and when they
are speaking Metaphorically...

What are the rules or criteria when reading
scripture to guide the reader to know when something they read is to be taken literally and
when it is meant metaphorically ??

I am not being sarcastic. I would like your point
of view on this ...

Grace and Peace,

Clem

Hello all. I posted on this site concerning the 2004 election and John Kerry's abortion stance a very long time ago. As for now, something a little more important is in order...the debate as to whether Catholicism or Protestantism is correct. Actually, it is more so a question of "Is the Catholic Church right, or is ONE OF the Protestant churches right?" Insert whichever protestant church you choose...fact is, there are various theological differences between different protestant denominations so IF I were to become protestant, I could not believe the relativist idea that there is not only one true protestant church. In my opinion the argument focuses on the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. Why? Because the Catholic Church is the oldest christian church in the world, as I will demonstrate, and the oldest protestant church is the Lutheran Church. Martin Luther and the most original of the reformers were actually slightly different from (some) modern protestants. They opposed contraception according to Genesis 38, and abortion as well, they usually used the Deuteronomic version (Augustine's list) of the 10 Commandments, they had no problem referring to Mary as the Mother of God, as being perpetually a virgin, or being immaculately conceived.

Thus there is no need, at least in this discussion, for catholics and protestants to debate things like "did Mary have other children", which is, for example a notion that occured only in the debate between Helvidius and Jerome and has only just reapparered in recent years. What we need to do is essentially a regressive analysis going from Reformation/Rebellion times back to the year 33 A.D. It would take hundreds of pages to take that matter on adequately, so I will make what points I must and hopefully they will lead to a fruitful discussion in this room.

I submit that Protestantism is more so based upon sola fide, faith alone, then sola scriptura, or bible alone. That was the primary heresy. Sola scriptura was the defense, in fact the main and ultimate defense of all heresies, and was necessitated by the occassion of Luther's movement. Around 434, speaking of heretics, Vincent of Lerins said that in defense of their heresy they say "it is written." Well, ALL OF US agree the bible is inspired and infallible, yes? But anyone can choose to interpret it DIFFERENTLY than another does. A parallel is the US Constitution, which liberals and conservatives interpret differently. Finding the original meaning of the text is the only method of proprerly interpreting it; revision and reinterpretation, if translated to biblical understanding, is tantamount to heresy.

If not for the printing press, Protestantism would have gone the way of the dodo, the way of every heresy that died out before it. Gnosticism, Arianism, Docetism, Sabellianism (need I go on, plus catholics opposed these heresies, not protestants). Private interpretation increased with more bibles available to the public. Sola Scripture was IMPOSSIBLE before the printing press because there were not enough original copies and the monks could never have made enough copies for lay distribution. So if "real" christians from 33 AD to 1500 AD used sola scriptura, then they must have been in the clergy or been very, very wealthy in order to have their own bible to privately interpret. Yet since protestants reject the idea that we should even have ministerial clergy, most of them aren't willing to look at Church Fathers and say "he's one of us" unless the person is someone like Augustine, and to say after reading of his life and reading his writings that he was anything but catholic is in the end wishful yet preposterous thinking.

Another point. Luther's german bible was not fully infallbile. It was flawed, in error, and it was a propaganda bible. Modern protestants would never assign Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation to an appendix without page numbers, as Luther did. The same was done with the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals which (and I challenge anyone to disprove this) had been part of every printed and handwritten bible, from the 382 Council of Rome to the Council of Florence in the 1430s and the Council of Trent in the 1540s. Luther's bible marked the departure point. Luther's german bible also INSERTED the word "alone" after the word "faith" for Romans 3:28, I believe. Yet in TRUTH the only place where the term "faith alone" appears in Sacred Scripture is in the Epistle of James where it is REJECTED. Adding words to the bible to advance his personal doctrine, Luther performed a masterful propaganda move which I think advanced his movement much more than many people have given it credit for.
Faith alone...now correct me if I am wrong, but that idea comes mostly from Romans, mostly from the Pauline Epistles. IF by faith alone we are saved, then we don't need anyone else telling us how to live a moral life nor do we even need to live that moral life for salvation, only for "sanctification." Yet Jesus gives us many example of SINFUL ACTIONS leading to hell. So we can be justified/saved yet missing out on sanctification means hellfire? Hmmmm. Doing good works MUST be more than just sanctification, that is one of my central points. INITIAL salvation is a matter of faith, and it is that salvation that Ephesians tells us of. Can we lose our salvation? Yes, we can, for we learn in 1 John that deadly sins exist, and since he is writing to Christians, then Christians are capable of committing deadly sins, i.e. sins that make us lose our salvation and send us to hell if we do not repent. Not sinning is a matter of obedience, but isn't obedience a work, work as in a moral action or activity in which Christ works through us and we "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" with him? Protestants maintain the notion foreign to scripture and Church history and tradition that God, in a legal manner, "declares" us justified, instead of MAKING US justified and clean. Hmm. What good is a declaration that is not carried out? When we are immersed in the holy spirit or it is poured out upon us, we are a new creation in Christ's body, the Church, and we are to work out our salvation with him working through us. Those who say "Lord, Lord" but do not DO WHAT THE LORD SAID are not true christians and are NOT saved. One must be in a state of grace in order to be saved, and the Catholic, historical and logical position is that that salvation can be lost by actions (sins) that we do, the "deadly sins".

As a side note, I think it would be premature to say that NOTHING good came of the Protestant Reformation/Rebellion. Unfortunately we tend to see things in black and white terms and neglect to see the gray. That being the case, it is entirely possible that, if the Reformation had a negative and divisive impact upon Christianity, it still had its positive results, even if not necessarily intended. Ever since the Reformation, no heresy has penetrated the ranks of the church to the extent that previous heresies had. The church became stronger and those who did not leave it were more or less "stronger" as a result. Thus the Reformation was in many ways a "vaccine" against future heretical movements within the Catholic Church. This may seem a little insulting perhaps to our protestant brethren of strong faith, so the other contributions protestantism and its members have made cannot be understated in every field out there. Songs composed by protestants are often sung in catholic masses. God brings the best out of all of us no matter which church we are a member of, yet we musn't forget that he does indeed call us to be members of His founded church, so one of the most important things a christian can do is to decide whether his is the right one and, in my opinion, whether it has the "oldest birthdate".

i dont no if i belive in god

First things first. The fact that everyone on this blog is a follower of Jesus Christ is a huge statement and a great plus. Sincere, genuine Chrisitians can disagree on theological issues,many of them extremely important, and yet have a lot of love and respect for each other.

There are big issues over which Roman Catholoics and Protestants disagree, but the fundamentals of the Love for God and neighbor, the keeping of the Commandments, the Virgin Birth, the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, these are the pillars on which we agree.

I recommend very highly Pope Benedict's work on ecumenism, as well at the late, great Pope John Paul II, of happy memory, who had written so well on this issue.

Dr. Scott Hahn, a brilliant Catholic theologian, a layman, and a former Protestant minister writes brilliantly on this issue. God Bless you all, and let's keep Chirst first and foremost in this Chirstmas Season. There is a culture war going on out there, it's Merry Chirstmas, not happy holidays. God Bless.

Hoss

Hoss, Evangelical Protestants in particular have as of late found themselves allied with and only with Roman Catholics. They joined 24 hour vigils to proclaim the value of the life of Terry Schiavo. Some even risked arrest by trying to bring her some water. I wonder what Our Lord will have to say to those who made it illegal to attempt to feed and hydrate Terry?

They have also campaigned hard to keep the phrase "Merry Christmas" acceptable for use in the public. They have spoken up in defense of traditional marriage and been suspended for unprofessional conduct. They have refused to prescribe contraceptives and accused of discriminatory conduct endangering the health of women. They are fighting the good fight, truly the world is not worthy of them.

At times like this I wonder if an Evangelical Protestant could one day be beatified or canonized.

Ok this is slightly disturbing. In the midst of all this high theology discussion, there appears one small cry for help:

"i dont no if i belive in god"
Posted by: harriet at November 18, 2005 11:40 AM

Posted nearly two weeks ago, this has gone completely ignored. Ok enough scolding.

Harriet,
If you are still out there reading this, then let me say that many of us have had times when we doubt. If you would like to discuss it, I would be happy to share with you some of my own experiences with that struggle and some of the things I've learned from it.

Think of this: you are reading this blog for a reason, something in you desires an an answer, somthing in you is searching, or else you wouldn't be here.

Feel free to email me at hrichards@comporium.net Or just reply here. I'll check back every few days. Hope to hear from you.

Richard

That appears to have been written in 2005! Much longer than 2 weeks and more disturbing.

In Love

when we were one

Wow, I totally missed that. Good catch. I saw the last two posts and just assumed that all the Novembers were this year.

Post a comment