Posted on 04/22/2010 9:55:26 PM PDT by Salvation
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:
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.
Opportunities of Grace: The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper
Roman Catholic Christians share with most Christians the faith that Jesus Christ, on the night he was betrayed, ate a final or last supper with his Apostles. This final meal was also the celebration of the Jewish Passover or Feast of the Unleavened Bread which commemorated the passing over of the Jews from the death in slavery to the Egyptians to life in the Promised Land.
Christians differ in the meaning this Last Supper has to them and the Church today. Catholic Christians together with other historical Christian Churches (e.g., Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans and some Episcopalians, etc.) believe the literal words of Jesus - that the bread and wine are truly his body and blood. Other later Christian Churches profess a mere symbolic meaning to the words of Jesus.
The faith of the Catholic Church is based on both a fundamental principle of hermeneutics and the constant faith of the Church from Apostolic times.
The Catholic Church teaches that the first principle of hermeneutics--the science of the translation and interpretation of the Bible--is the literal meaning of the text.
The first writer of the New Testament was the apostle Paul. His Letter to the Corinthians was written as early as 56 AD, earlier than the first Gospel, Mark's, written about 64 AD. Paul was also not an eyewitness to what he wrote but testifies to his source.
The next New Testament text in chronological order would have been Mark's Gospel. Written about 64 AD, in Rome, Mark, not an eyewitness, probably heard the account of the Last Supper he recorded from the Apostle Peter.
The third account of the Last Supper could be Matthew's. Matthew, the tax collector Levi, was an eyewitness to the meal. He was one of the twelve Apostles. Matthew probably wrote his Gospel in the 70's.
Luke's account of the Last Supper, written from the standpoint of a Gentile convert and a non-eyewitness, probably heard the details of the Last Supper from Paul. Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. Luke also wrote in the 70's.
The beloved disciple, John, the last of the New Testament writers, wrote his Gospel in the 90's. John was an eyewitness to the events of the Last Supper (Jn 6:30-68).
Hence Catholic Christian belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist rests upon the literal meaning of the words of the Last Supper as recorded by the Evangelists and Paul.
The uniformity of expression across the first four authors affirms the literalness. Belief in the real presence demands faith--the basis of new life as called for by Christ throughout scripture. But faith in signs conferring what they signify is the basis also for the Incarnation--appearances belying true meaning. The true significance of the real presence is sealed in John's gospel. Five times in different expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of what he means.
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.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus 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.
Non believers often respond that even at the Last Supper, the apostles did not sense that they had flesh in their hands and blood in their cup. But Jesus is God. The creative literalness of the words: "This is my body; this is my blood" must be believed. God cannot lie. And God can turn bread into flesh and wine into blood without the appearances of bread and wine changing.
Medieval philosophers and theologians called this expression of Divine Truth and Creative Power "transubstantiation". Yes, God can change the substance of any created matter while the appearances remain unchanged. And this demands faith.
Paul confirms elsewhere in his letters the reality of the real presence.
The persuasion of the Church from Apostolic times about the objective reality of these words of Christ is clear from many documents.
Irenaeus (Asia Minor, 140 - 202), Tertullian (Rome, 160 - 220), Cyprian (Carthage, 200 - 258) are just a few of the earliest who attest to the objective reality of the words of Christ.
In the Church in Alexandria, Athanasius (293 - 373) and Cyril (376 - 444) equally attest to the literal meaning of the words of Christ at the Last Supper.
In the Church in Palestine, Cyril (Jerusalem, 315 - 387) and Epiphanius (Salamis, 367 - 403) also affirm in their teaching the same reality.
Unanimity is found across the universal church until the 11th century. Berengar (Tours, France, 1000 - 1088) was one of the first to deny the real presence by arguing that Christ is not physically present, but only symbolically.
The Council of Rome (a local council), 1079, taught against Berengar that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ.
By the 16th century, some Reformers (excluding Luther) also taught that Christ's presence in the Eucharist was only figurative or metaphorical. Since there were other opinions being taught as truth (figurative presence and metaphorical presence) a teaching authority (see Chapter 5) had to be appealed to discern error from the truth. The way of the Church was to follow the model of Acts 15.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563) defined the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist as both the continuing sacrifice of Christ and a real sacrament. The institution of the Eucharist as sacrament was contained in the words "Do this in remembrance of me."
Roman Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in the liturgical act called the Mass. The word Mass comes from the Latin missa ("sent"). It was taken from the formula for dismissing the congregation: Ite missa est ("Go, the Eucharist has been sent forth") referring to the ancient custom of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the sick and to the other churches.
The Mass contains two parts: the liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word is a copy of the Jewish synagogue service of the first century: readings from Scripture followed by responses from the congregation often from the Book of Psalms. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is a reenactment of the Last Supper. A celebrant does what Christ did: take bread and wine and say the same words Christ said and then share the now consecrated bread and wine with the congregation.
Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine become the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and remain such until the elements are entirely consumed. The Body and Blood not consumed at one Eucharist are reserved for the next celebration of the Eucharist and venerated as the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians take the word of God seriously and seek to remember Christ in the Last Supper "as often as" possible. And in doing this proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Catholic Christians also believe that there is only one sacrifice, Jesus', but following the command "as often as" to proclaim the death of the Lord, the sacrifice of Christ is made physically present to every Christian in all places in every age. The Eucharist makes the atemporal aphysical actions of Christ's redeeming action truly present to us always and everywhere. This is incarnational.
Following the word of God, Catholics also know that Christ is not and cannot be resacrificed. This has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The constant faith of the Church from the Apostolic Fathers attests to the fact that the Mass was the one Sacrifice of Calvary made present to the faithful.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this statement explicitly.
The Roman Catholic Church through history approached her faith life with the clarification of language. That is, she translated the essentials of revealed faith into the vocabulary of living language.
Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.
Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.
In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.
Congratulations! Your post, though terse, was a post. I have noticed you completely ignoring several substantive posts regarding the topics you brought up in the first place, so this is progress. Keep up the good work!
You mean dumping of dogma into a discussion format and then not answering those that respond to the dogma.
If we wanted to be Catholics (or learn about Catholicism), we could go to Catholic churches/seminaries/websites, etc.
If we want to discuss something with a Catholic, that he or she brings up, we respond to the content of their post, and should expect the courtesy of a reply, though it is evident that many have been burned by the “dump and run” tactics I have seen repeatedly in just the past few weeks, and don’t really expect a reply.
Sad. (Not LOL as you seem to think.)
| For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. |
I cna raed wrdos thta rea spleld wrogn.
No it isn't.
Why would Catholics not take this seriously when that particular narrative talks about many of Jesus’ followers leaving?
Because the very idea that HE, Jesus, was the One to which the LAMB pointed was offensive!
NOT the 'eating of his flesh'.
They JUST - DIDN'T - GET - IT!
When Thomas finally said, "My Lord and my God!" he didn't try to lick the blood from Jesus' hand!
On the road to emmaus the disciples had to have EXPLANATION of what the Scriptures had said about Him.
HE ate with them and NO mention of a eucharistic ritual took place.
Does that mean that you are in complete agreement with what I brought out from the Bible? If so, the the whole structure of the Latin Church is suspect of being a super cult led by an influential leader who represents Christ on earth. In doing so, it has created a vast bureaucracy to control its membership, which they call the laity.
There are no special castes of "priests" to perform ritualistic exercises such as was found in Judahism in contrast to what is found in the Bible - that is the misuse and misunderstanding to the term "presbuteros", which the RCC redefined to mean a "priest".
But it’s because Catholics ARE reading and studying the Bible now!
Yes, and many of them are coming out of the RCC to join a real Biblical Christian church.
Remember, I said you could always come back.
Yes, I remember, but why should I deny what I've found out and return to error?
All in all, are you afraid or ashamed to respond to what I said in my previous messages? Or is it that you are faced with the truth and wish to ignore it? Which is it?
“Literal” does not mean “morphological”. That words like priest or bishop have morphological origin in various ordinary ways to describe a leader of any kind, — even a leader of animals — does not mean they should not be used in the narrow technical sense in the Church.
“Literal” means “in the sense directly meant and understood by the writer and contemporaneous reader”. For example, “this is my body” literally means the physical body. The opposite of that is allegorical, for example, “this is my body” really refers to my friends or relatives. The Church teches that the literal meaning is to be preferred unless the allegorical is clearly indicated by context. For example, “I am the door through which sheep enter the pen” cannot be taken literally because the context is an allegory of the Church being like a pen of sheep.
If you put the instruction of eating His body and drinking His blood (remember that the Jews recoiled in abhorrence at the idea of cannibalism), along with the Last Supper (which replaced Passover for Christianity), and the writing of Paul (as often as you do this), and go to the early Church's practices - they started to celebrate the Mass as often as possible. Which in the Church is daily.
Beyond this and other Scriptural support, we have the early Church documents - the Didache, Ignatius and Justin Martyr expanding upon the Gospel and Pauline verses regarding the Eucharist.
These things (leaving aside a deliberately comical reference to them) are indeed miraculous acts of sovereign God, but by what logic are they something Sovereign God would "never" do?
First, for a Catholic Christian, the Gospels are the direct message from God and the Old Testament is in many parts vague and imprecise , -- albeit inspired -- prefigurements of it. So, in principle, it is possible that the New Testament clarifies and rephrases the Old. This is why it was wrtiten in the first place.
However, to take "almah" in some way that excludes the sense of "virgin" is absurd, because to say, "behold, a young woman will conceive and call the Child Emmanuel" is a meaningless statement. It is old women conceiving that is near miraculous and is perhaps worth prophesying about, not young ones.
"This is my body" when referring to things other than ones literal body is allegorical usage - if I took a piece of bread and said "this is my body", that is allegorical usage - That is what Jesus did. "This is my body" can also be used in a spiritual sense, which Jesus also spoke about; "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." This was spoken in response to his allegorical reference of his body being food and his blood being drink - which his disciples said was a "hard teaching" if referring to his "literal body." Your allegorical use of "this is my body" being a reference to "my friends or relatives" is sort of ridiculous usage. You can do better than that :-)
The Church teches that the literal meaning is to be preferred unless the allegorical is clearly indicated by context.
Exactly, just as I said above about "this is my body."
“Literal” does not mean “morphological”. That words like priest or bishop have morphological origin in various ordinary ways to describe a leader of any kind, — even a leader of animals — does not mean they should not be used in the narrow technical sense in the Church.
Hmm...Salvation must have pinged you to explain something he/she couldn't do - is that right? Regardless, the terms used in the Bible do have literal meanings in the cases I cited about the terms presbuteros, episkopos, etc. They are used to describe the office of certain people. Explain, please, exactly what those verses and words mean that I bought out about the offices of the church in post #22. I sure would like to hear from you on that specifically! Ref: Acts 20:17, 27–28 and 1 Peter 5:1–2.
Good luck...
**You mean dumping of dogma into a discussion format and then not answering those that respond to the dogma.**
Which dogma?
So can I. LOL!
Why do you speak, as a former Catholic, of the Catholic Church being a supercult. You, I think, would know better than to throw that around. LOL!
LOL! I knew it would get your attention - and it did, that was the purpose! I was hoping that you would actually address what I had posted - but you didn't.
Explanation: The apostle Paul was accused of being a leader of the church in Acts 28:22. The term used was "aireseos", i.e., sect, cult, scion, etc. I used it to emphasize the point that the RCC was simply a very large sect of Christianity, a cult, sect, scion, etc., of the church of Christ: actually, a division, faction, religious party and even a false party or teaching.
You posted: Which dogma?
Are you seriously that clueless to what you are doing when you post?
Your initial post #1, and subsequent posts #6 and #7 — are pure Catholic dogma.
If you want to “dump” it you should defend it, or at least have the courtesy to respond to those who comment on your posts.
So, help me here, should I feel sad for you because you don’t realize what you are doing, or because you “dump” and run?
I don’t consider the old covenant (Old Testament) either vague or imprecise, nor do I consider the new covenant (New Testament) unclear.
I consider the old covenant to be the “old” covenant and the new covenant to be the “new” covenant.
It makes sense to me what you posted about a young woman conceiving being a meaningless statement as it was supposed to designate a “sign” from God. Good point!
1) sign, signal
a) a distinguishing mark
b) banner
c) remembrance
d) miraculous sign
e) omen
f) warning
2) token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign! I think (agree with you) that He would pick something designed to demonstrate His omnipotence as opposed to an everyday occurence.
Only because you and I know that you are not God capable of working miracles. But in the case of Jesus and the Eucharist we also have John 6 where His body is said to be "food indeed". Further, if you were going to suffer and die and your words to me were, pointing at bread, "This is my body", I would at least have the courtesy, knowing you as a thoughtful person to assume you meant it literally and not joking around on a solemn moment like this. The Apostles did take Christ literally -- St. Paul, for example, considers "not discerning the body" in the Eucharistic bread a great sin, akin to spiritual death (1 Cor 11:23-30). The ideas that the Eucharist is merely a memorial meal with bread and maybe grape juice is a late invention, wholly outside of the Apostolic tradition.
Explain, please, exactly what those verses and words mean that I bought out about the offices of the church in post #22.
Why, you are correct that in Acts 20:17, 27–28 St Paul speaks of the holy office of the Episcopacy:
Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Act 20:28)
Was your point that priesthood was at the time not separated from episcopacy? That is correct also, -- the Church was not big enough to have preists who are not bishops. That is also clear from 1 Peter 5:
1 The ancients [πρεσβυτερους]therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient [συμπρεσβυτερος], and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre's sake, but voluntarily: 3 Neither as lording it over the clergy [κληρων], but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 4 And when the prince of pastors [αρχιποιμενος] shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. 5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients [πρεσβυτεροις]. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.
This speaks of the consecrated character of the priesthood, no? I love these verses too, this is why I am, glory be to God, Catholic.
Yes, thank you.
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.