Catholic Biblical Apologetics

Apologetics without apology!

What does the Roman Catholic Church teach about ...? ... and why?

This website surveys the origin and development of Roman Catholic Christianity from the period of the apostolic church, through the post-apostolic church and into the conciliar movement. Principal attention is paid to the biblical basis of both doctrine and dogma as well as the role of paradosis (i.e. handing on the truth) in the history of the Church. Particular attention is also paid to the hierarchical founding and succession of leadership throughout the centuries.

This is a set of lecture notes used since 1985 to teach the basis for key doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The objectives of the course were, and are:

To present the biblical basis for the origin and development of the Roman Catholic Church.
To present the development of the canon of Scripture and evolution of biblical teaching in the Church.
To understand the role of paradosis/tradition in the oral transmission of revelation.
To study the Council of Jerusalem, described in the 15^th chapter of The Acts of the Apostles and its role in the development of doctrine in the conciliar movement in the Church.
To understand the revelation, doctrinal development and practice of the sacramental life in the history of the Church.
To study the role of the Holy Spirit as teaching authority in the Church.
To study the revelation and development of hierarchical authority in the Church.
To understand the hierarchy of truths in the Church as well as the role of private devotion and personal growth in holiness.

The course grew out of the need for the authors to continually answer questions about their faith tradition and their work. (Both authors are active members of Catholic parish communities in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Robert Schihl was a Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Communication and the Arts at Regent University. Paul Flanagan is a consultant specializing in preparing people for technology based changes.) At the time these notes were first prepared, the authors were spending time in their faith community answering questions about their Protestant Evangelical workplaces (Mr. Flanagan was then a senior executive at the Christian Broadcasting Network), and time in their workplaces answering similar questions about their Roman Catholic faith community. These notes are the result of more than a decade of facilitating dialogue among those who wish to learn more about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and why.

Interpretation of John 6:25-69

Following the details of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes--biographical, Jesus walking on the sea--biographical, Jesus reacts to the crowds' need for signs. Jesus takes them from manna, bread from heaven, to "true bread from heaven (v. 32)" ... "I am the bread (v. 35)." "I am the bread that came down from heaven (v. 41)." This is God saying this: "I am the bread that came down from heaven." If He was not really the bread that came down from heaven, His omnipotent and creative Word would then have made it so.

Five times in different verbal expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of the meaning he intended.

Jn 6:51: I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.
Jn 6:53: Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."
Jn 6:54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
Jn 6:55: For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Jn 6:56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law.

Jn 6:60,66: Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus, knowing their thoughts and their error, would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk.

from corinthians 11:
“23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”
so if we do not DISCERN the Lord’s Body, what? paul is clearly stating the CHurch’s position. Why did many early Christians die because the they were accused of being “cannibals”, ie, eating the body and blood of Jesus?
from the Old testament: “ Exodus 12
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,
2. This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.
3. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
4. And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
5. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
6. And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
7. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.
8. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
9. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.
10. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.
11. And thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the LORD’s passover.
12. For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
13. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
14. And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.”
IF the israels did not eat the sacrificed lamb, they suffered death.
WHy did John the baptist call Jesus the Lamb of God?
why was the last supper on the passover?

I don't know of any "magic shows" held by The Catholic Church -- perhaps this "Roman church" you refer to is the one you attend? Because it certainly doesn't describe The Church, the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Do you guys gather around and do magic shows often? Can we come and watch?
Why don't you praise Jesus Christ more and actually read the bible like the Catholic Church?

Come, be saved and know the fullness of Christ in Christ's Church -- leave your pastor or guru behind and accept Christ in Christ's Church

The Catholic Church of today is the direct descendant of the Roman "church"
created at Nicea by the anti-semitic Pagans led by Constantine.
The Roman "church" rejected the YHvH commanded Feasts in His Holy Word
( Shabbat, Passover and the other six commanded Feast Days )
and replaced them with Pagan feasts. e.g. Sunday, Easter and Christmas.
Later they instituted the Magic show to claim to change
the wine and matzoh of Passover into the body and blood of the Living G-d.
You are free to follow the false shepherds of the Roman "church".
However you might want to consider following the ONE YHvH
found in the Holy Word of G-d. The creator of the universe.
It is your choice.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

Actually no, there was no church created at Nicea by +Constantine -- haven't you read the books? Constantine called for a convention of Elders and bishops of the existing Church which he removed from being outlawed. He didn't create anything --> unlike your groups or other groups, The CHurch is not man-made

Ha Ha! You think that Pascha/Wielkanoc is pagan? Parlez-vous Francais? Mowicz po polsku? Or only English?

Na, no magic shows, sadly -- we leave that to televangelists and others who use magic incantantations -- the Eucharist is what Jesus Christ instituted -- you know, we Christians consider Christ God -- I don't know about your group

You are free to follow your pastors or a flawed interpretation of scripture, but you should really come to Christ, be saved in Christ's Church and follow Christ and accept Christ in christ' Church as your God, not your pastor or your own interpretation

You are free to follow your pastors or a flawed interpretation of scripture, but you should really come to Christ, be saved in Christ’s Church and follow Christ and accept Christ in christ’ Church as your God, not your pastor or your own interpretation.

No church can save anyone, only by accepting the shed blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary, repenting of your sins, and be baptized can one be saved. However, do not mistake being baptized as necessary for salvation. It is an outward expression of an inward work. Do you not follow the pope, bishops and priests interpretation of the Bible? Yet, you want to say that Protestants follow their pastor’s teachings.

Let me repeat - no institution, or rituals can save anyone. One doesn’t have to be inside a building to be saved, nor affiliated with any group. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin, drawing mankind to the work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross.

Salvation wrote:

“Just posting from the site. Are you saying that you don’t agree with the apologetics here?

They are definitely a Catholic viewpoint, so I might see that.”

Yes, I am saying that I don’t agree with them. The way this thread is presented is that John 6:25-69 is simply a long prooftext for the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. That is not a credible conclusion.

That it has something to say regarding how we are to understand the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper I would not deny. But this is an inherently difficult text to press into use for such a purpose. On the one hand, somewhat in favor of your borrowed assertion, is that the Gospel according to St. John was written after the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke as well as Paul’s 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, and a considerable time after the earthly ministry of Christ. If the church had taken Jesus’ command to “do this in remembrance of Me” seriously, which would certainly have been true, then the Supper was being practiced regularly in the time John wrote his Gospel. It is in the background, but only in the background.

On the other hand, John is reporting on words of Jesus spoken many months before He instituted the Supper, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. So, we can hardly assume that He was commenting directly and explicitly on something that He had not yet revealed, instituted, and commanded.

More profitable for both our understanding and our honoring of the Lord of the church would be to determine from the words John wrote what precisely was at issue between Jesus and those who were having such trouble grasping His teaching. I doubt the point at issue between Jesus and the people of the Sea of Galilee environs was the presence of Christ in the as yet unknown Lord’s Supper. Do you see my point? And it is one that has a lot to do with one’s hermeneutical principles, and thus in keeping with the thread’s stated purpose.

Salvation wrote:

“I guess we will have to agree to disagree. This passage from John presents the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist in words written by John — as he witnessed it at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday.”

... even though he nowhere says that in the verses cited.

In other words, you are not going to respond to the point I made about Jesus’ audience and the real time context of what He is saying, just ignore it. This is a strange kind of apologetics you practice. In fact, how can you call it apologetics?

Nope we follow The Church as a whole's tradition and interpretation of the Bible -- the stock of wisdom of 2000 years of billions of Christians reading the bible.

We do not follow some individual's interpretation of The Bible

Being baptised is one of the sacraments -- just like Mark's opening scene of Christ being baptised is a pivotal point in Christ's life -- you cannot call it anything BUT important unless you deny Christ's words and deeds

No institution saves you, but institutions outside The CHurch with their heretical teachings can lead you on the road to damnation -- like Mormons, etc.

The Church of Christ maintains the teachings of Christ and His Apostles for 2000 years. Think of it -- we've had persecutions, heresies, sinful popes, evil priests, etc and still have remained true for 2000 years. It's not due to any man that we have remained but it is due to God's grace alone and to Christ's words that HE would protect His CHurch

In opposition, every heresy has seemed so powerful -- the Marcionites seemed incredibly powerful as did the Gnostics while the Manicheans were spreading like wildfire as were the Montanists. But they died.

The Arians had political power as they had converted the Germanics to their view before the Germanics came to orthodox lands in the Roman Empire. But Arianism died.

Ditto for every heresy -- and as the article in the Wall Street Journal The Beginning of the Reformation's End? "If we look at histories, heresies run themselves out after about 500 years. I believe we are seeing the last gasp of the Reformation in the mainline Protestant groups."

Ditto for all of the other groups that came after that first gen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.