A Visit to Heaven (an Evangelical's visit to a Catholic seminary)

P-Squared ^ | May 1, 2011

[NYer]

My brother is a Roman Catholic seminarian, and I visited him at Mount Saint Marys Seminary the last couple days to see him installed in his second-to-last office (acolyte) before hopefully being ordained a priest (in about two years). I’ve been hoping to visit John for a long time, and finally got the opportunity.

My Evangelical brothers and sisters typically misunderstand and mischaracterize the Catholic Church, its leaders and theology and practices, so I felt compelled to write this to them, an “open letter” if you will.

First off, much of what Evangelicals believe about Catholicism, what they believe and who they are, is flat out incorrect. I will not dedicate any space here to that, except to say that people don’t listen to each other all that well in the 21st century, even though it’s easier than ever, technologically, to do. We should all try harder.

So let me tell you what I found among the more than 150 seminarians I spent a couple days with.

I found men who love Jesus with a passion and wholeness that I find rare among Christians of any stripe in these days.

I found men who struggle with the same kinds of things that we all do, regular guys who are dealing with what we all deal with… with the amazing support of Christ, of their brothers, and of the church.

I found men who can chuck a frisbee way farther than I ever will be able to.

I found a place where worship is very deep, even sublime, and regular and intentional and heartfelt… and amazing, and where prayer is an intentionally regular and essential and practiced part of every day. I found that Jesus was palpably present in every room and hallway.

I ate one of the tastiest meals I’ve had in forever.

I found generosity that is inspiring.

I found a group of guys that, when it’s time to have fun… have some serious fun.

I found real intelligence, insight and wisdom being leveraged for the kingdom of Heaven. Almost any of these guys could probably lead, and lead well, in any secular company and probably make a lot of money.

I found the presence of Christ in community that I was, frankly, a little envious of.

I found a love of Christ’s body on earth that you don’t find very often anywhere.

I found that not everybody will make it, but if they don’t, it is handled with grace and love. I didn’t find any ambition, though, really.

I didn’t actually really hear anybody say anything that wasn’t uplifting and encouraging.

I met leaders and instructors who care for those under their charge with passion and charity.

I found the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit elevated and exalted and magnified in every single thing. I found some things that are not my particular practices, but even those things did nothing but lift up and exalt our Lord.

Men, what a blessing you were to me! I have news for you. Heaven will be just like this!

If these men are any indication of the kinds of people who will emerge as the priests and leaders of the Catholic Church in this new century, there are great days ahead for them, and more and more people are going to experience the Gospel in real, tangible ways.

Note: In the past few days, this post has become almost all of my internet traffic for the entire year, receiving thousands of hits. Thanks for sharing my joy in people who are passionately in love with Jesus and His Church.

But… I have received some comments (VERY few) I am not allowing to be posted here that were, in my opinion, inflammatory or negative. Sorry. It’s my blog… You’re welcome to start your own… but divisiveness among those who love and follow Jesus, especially divisiveness built on prejudice and ignorance and even past hurts, is not something I can stand any more at this stage in my life. My life’s background has included mainline and evangelical Christianity as well as Roman Catholocism (which I grew up in). I know what I speak of, and many of you that are saying the things you are saying are flat out incorrect, and I’m sorry for your hurts or feelings, but they have no place here. Blessings!

[Cronos]

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who bstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said

[PatriotGirl827]

Wow. Thank you for those excellent posts. You did a great job of breaking it down.

[Cronos]

you're welcome, but the real credit goes to our non-Catholic friends who ask the same thing over and over again, so I just typed out what I normally reply, expanded it with direct quotes from scripture and show our friends like jmouse that the real problem is that the Church follows scripture, the Faith handed down from Christ through the Apostles and many of our friends outside the Church do not follow God's word

God has said so clearly in John 6, repeated in the Pauline Epistles about the Eucharist

Similarly for Baptism for the Remission of sins.

The core reason why people like jmouse (good, Christian people) is because their religious groups have rejected bibilical, scriptural doctrines like the Eucharist and Confession and Baptism for the remission of Sins (incidently our Lutheran and Anglican Protestant brethern believe in the True Presence, in Confession and Baptism for the remission of sins, so it is only some non-Catholic groups that disagree)

[Cronos]

The central doctrine that we all share is encapsulated in the Nicene Creed. I take it that you agree with all that is encapsulated? That outlines our basic beliefs. Do you disagree with any of these, please?

[ADSUM]

Nearby is the National Shrine of St Elizabeth Ann Seton, First Native born USA saint.

http://www.setonshrine.org/n_shrine/n_shrine.htm

[Jmouse007]

According to the Council of Trent, everyone who does not believe in the numerous so-called Roman Catholic "doctrines" that are listed there are damned according to the Church of Rome.

In reality, according to the Council of Trent, Roman Catholicism and biblical Christianity have nothing in common because doctrinally they are diametrically opposed to one another.

[Cronos]

Quite in contrast, sir, the Council of Trent affirms that we are the Church of the New Testament, the Apostolic Church.

Our beliefs and practises are the same as the Early Christians (refer to the Didache AD 70 and refer to the beliefs and practises of not only the Eastern Orthodox but also the Syro-Malabar Church which has the same beliefs and practises

Might I ask, sir, if you believe in the Eucharist -- and if not, then why when it is clearly outlined?

[Cronos]

The above posts list the Biblical reasons why we believe in the Eucharist — do you believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist?

[Jmouse007]

I absolutely do not believe in the false doctrine of "transubstantiation," or the eucharist. Neither do I believe that Christ is physically present in the so-called "eucharist" or that the so-called "eucharist" represents/contains the literal body, soul and spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, or that it is to be venerated and worshipped. Not, unless you believe Jesus sinned by teaching cannibalism!

As for the reasons why I do not believe these things, you know perfectly well why biblical Christianity does not believe in transubstantiation, the so-called eucharist, Christ being physically present in the eucharist or the "sacrifice of the mass for the sins of the living and the dead". The reasons have been explained to you and to other Roman Catholics, numerous times on FR but you willfully refuse to accept the scriptural evidence found in John chapter 6 in context, and elsewhere in Scripture as to why such an interpretation is totally spurious. Therefore, for me to restate the reasons again is pointless because you have already rejected them.

For anyone reading this post who have an open heart and mind to learn the truth regarding the false-doctrine of "transubstantiation", the following article entitled: "FIFTY-FIVE THESES AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION" found here:

http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/nontrans.htm

does an excellent job of presenting the biblical and historical reasons for refuting the unscriptural doctrine of transubstantiation.

[Cronos]

And yet, let's take these "historical reasons"

the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who bstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed it -- he said that Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. --> only Calvin/Zwingli turned around what Christ had said

Ergo -- historically, your point is wrong. Early Christians believed in Christ being physically present in the Eucharist.

Secondly -- note that not only Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals, Assyrians believe this, but also Lutherans and Anglicans. People like the Assyrians -- separated from orthodoxy for over 1,600 years believe in this too and so did all Christians until the 16th century. I'm sorry sir, but your point is wrong

[Cronos]

Secondly, your statement is scripturally false

if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The Jews made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

[Cronos]

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

[Cronos]

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

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

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

[Cronos]

Let me repeat -- How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Now if you wish to disregard:

1. Christ's very own words
2. Paul reiterating them
3. Historical proof that Early Christians believed in Christ's presence in the Eucharist
4. The fact that not only us in orthodoxy (Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, Assyrians,Chaldeans) but Lutherans and Anglicans among the Protestants believe Christ is present

[Cronos]

Let's take your first point in the link you sent me:

Quite incorrect -- firstly, it completely disregards the entire tone of John 6 -- what happens at the start? Jesus multiplies the loaves and fish, isn't that kind of physical?

Secondly, He proceeds to tell them that in the past they received manna from Heaven, quite physical and then goes on to talk about His own body and blood

Thirdly, He cannot be talking about partaking of His body and blood physcially if you actually read the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

[Cronos]

Point 2 -- red herring. Yes, the Word was present in the OT as well, His sacrifice had not yet taken place in this timeline

Point 3 -- saying John 6 is not related to Christ's sacrifice is saying that His ministry was disjointed. This is reading in excerpts again. The entire Bible is Christ focused and especially John. Think about it -- what is the point of the multiplication of loaves and bread just before Christ tells people about eating His body and blood? And not only that, but the listeners including many of His disciples understood EXACTLY what He meant and rejected this, as you do, because they thought His words were outrageous

[Cronos]

Point 4: taking the verse 26 excerpted without reading what Christ says later is kind of weird on the author's part, eh?

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The Jews made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

This, JMouse refutes points 4 to 8

[Cronos]

Next, point 9 -- this author does seem to distort Christ's very own words -- what does Christ actually say?

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

No "keeps on feeding" -- do at least read the KJV if not the D-R for an accurate translation

[Cronos]

Sticking to point 9 -- another hint that the author is talking through his hat " a reasonable term in purgatory, yet could possibly still end up in hell for ever'" -- you may agree or disagree with this final stage of sanctification, but at least get the facts right -- this is not a "term" -- no doctrine considers this final stage of sanctification to be a period of time or a place. In fact being a part of the sanctification process, no details are dogma, it may just be when we enter heaven, we are getting our final sanctification by the blood of the Lamb

Secondly, this final sancatification is only for those going to heaven -- if you are getting it, you're not going to hell, that's definite. If your ticket is already punched (by the blood of the Lamb) and you've accepted it (accepted the freely given grace of salvation), you are stepping through the doorway (final sanctification) -- you're not going to be rejected.

This guy does not know what he is talking about

[Cronos]

Point 10: he quotes John 6:6 incorrectly -- which faulty translation is he usign? The KJV says 6And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do. not "It is the Spirit Who keeps on enlivening!" Neither is it John 6:61 which in the KJV is 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.