quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
video

Thanks for posting these videos. I think he clearly lays out the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in an easy to understand way and hopefully the video will clear up any misunderstandings or strawmen of protestant belief. I don't think there's anything that needs added or removed from the explanation in the 2nd video in particular.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

Look at her role in the Wedding at Cana.

Is this to imply that Mary is someone we should enlist to pray with us and for us, when favorable worldly (though righteous) outcomes are the goal?

I would enlist the intercession of Mary and time. Praying for myself, praying for others, anytime.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
video

Thanks for posting these videos. I think he clearly lays out the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in an easy to understand way and hopefully the video will clear up any misunderstandings or strawmen of protestant belief. I don't think there's anything that needs added or removed from the explanation in the 2nd video in particular.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding protestant beliefs as a former protestant... But who decides what things in scripture mean? If scripture alone is the sole infallible and inspired rule of faith for the church, then who decides what Jesus meant when He said, "This is my body"?

I would say that He meant that it was His body. Others would argue that it represents His body. Others would pretend that that verse wasn't there. So which is it? Only one can be true. Who determines that? On what authority do they make that determination?

The wedding at Cana does not make Mary an intercessor between God and man for sin or anything else. Christ is the only One who has that power. He died for me. Mary didn’t.

She has no special power in heaven.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding protestant beliefs as a former protestant... But who decides what things in scripture mean?

The words are given their meaning by the ultimate author of scripture which is God (2 Tim 3:16) but if you're asking about interpreting the meaning of the words, we use hermeneutics and context to read and interpret scripture similar to how we read and understand other forms of literature. There are various forms of bible study ranging from simple individual reading to the highest levels of scholasticism. Is it your position that the Roman Catholic Church gives meaning to scripture, and, if so, could you link to where the RCC dogmatically interprets scripture?

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
If scripture alone is the sole infallible and inspired rule of faith for the church, then who decides what Jesus meant when He said, "This is my body"?

I would say that He meant that it was His body. Others would argue that it represents His body. Others would pretend that that verse wasn't there. So which is it? Only one can be true. Who determines that? On what authority do they make that determination?

Is this in reference to John chapter 6? I'm just wanting to clarify before I give an answer so as to not be unresponsive to your question.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding protestant beliefs as a former protestant... But who decides what things in scripture mean?

The words are given their meaning by the ultimate author of scripture which is God (2 Tim 3:16) but if you're asking about interpreting the meaning of the words, we use hermeneutics and context to read and interpret scripture similar to how we read and understand other forms of literature. There are various forms of bible study ranging from simple individual reading to the highest levels of scholasticism. Is it your position that the Roman Catholic Church gives meaning to scripture, and, if so, could you link to where the RCC dogmatically interprets scripture?

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
If scripture alone is the sole infallible and inspired rule of faith for the church, then who decides what Jesus meant when He said, "This is my body"?

I would say that He meant that it was His body. Others would argue that it represents His body. Others would pretend that that verse wasn't there. So which is it? Only one can be true. Who determines that? On what authority do they make that determination?

Is this in reference to John chapter 6? I'm just wanting to clarify before I give an answer so as to not be unresponsive to your question.

No, Jesus didn't use those specific words in John 6. I'm speaking more to the Last Supper. However, the context of those words in light of John 6 gives clarity to their meaning.

quote:

The wedding at Cana does not make Mary an intercessor between God and man for sin or anything else. Christ is the only One who has that power. He died for me. Mary didn’t.

She has no special power in heaven.

That's why I speculated the specific circumstance I did at the bottom of the previous page. It seemed directly related to her specific role in the event Cous referred-to.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
No, Jesus didn't use those specific words in John 6. I'm speaking more to the Last Supper. However, the context of those words in light of John 6 gives clarity to their meaning.

We would certainly agree that John 6 adds context to Jesus' words at the Last Supper but we disagree on the hermeneutic we are using to interpret his words. Given that Jesus uses many parables and speaks often using symbolism, why have you decided to use a literal hermeneutic for interpretation of Jesus' words at the Last Supper? Is it because the Roman Catholic Church uses this hermeneutic or is this your personal interpretation?

I'm certainly happy to discuss Matthew 26/John 6 but it seems that understanding each other's underlying method of how we should approach interpreting scripture would help show the fundamental agreements/disagreements which is why it would help me if you would answer these foundational questions.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:
No, Jesus didn't use those specific words in John 6. I'm speaking more to the Last Supper. However, the context of those words in light of John 6 gives clarity to their meaning.

We would certainly agree that John 6 adds context to Jesus' words at the Last Supper but we disagree on the hermeneutic we are using to interpret his words. Given that Jesus uses many parables and speaks often using symbolism, why have you decided to use a literal hermeneutic for interpretation of Jesus' words at the Last Supper? Is it because the Roman Catholic Church uses this hermeneutic or is this your personal interpretation?

I'm certainly happy to discuss Matthew 26/John 6 but it seems that understanding each other's underlying method of how we should approach interpreting scripture would help show the fundamental agreements/disagreements which is why it would help me if you would answer these foundational questions.

Let's not move from the theological error of Sola Scriptura just yet. The case for the Eucharist has recently been made on this thread, and we can revisit it again, but I think we need to investigate Sola Scriptura more.

Here is why I reject the protestant arguments using hermeneutics:

Subjectivity & Division:
Without an authoritative interpreter, thousands of denominations arise, all claiming to use “proper hermeneutics.”

Hermeneutics Still Needs Authority:
The Bible doesn’t interpret itself in practice. Even Protestants follow teachers, commentaries, and confessions (like the Westminster Confession). So hermeneutics doesn’t remove authority—it shifts it to the individual or pastor.

Scripture Itself Points to Tradition and Church Authority:

1 Tim 3:15: “The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.”

2 Thess 2:15: “Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, whether by word or by letter.”

Acts 8:31: The Ethiopian eunuch needs someone to interpret.

quote:

Let's not move from the theological error of Sola Scriptura just yet. The case for the Eucharist has recently been made on this thread, and we can revisit it again, but I think we need to investigate Sola Scriptura more.

You brought up John 6 and the Last Supper. I was simply replying to your initiation of that topic.

quote:

Scripture Itself Points to Tradition and Church Authority:

1 Tim 3:15: “The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.”

2 Thess 2:15: “Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, whether by word or by letter.”

Acts 8:31: The Ethiopian eunuch needs someone to interpret.

All 3 of those verses you cited are great proof texts I would use to support my theological positions but it seems like you are posting them in support of your position so, again, please give me the citation or a link to where the Roman Catholic Church has given the accurate and infallible interpretation of these texts, otherwise aren't you engaging in the very thing you're condemning by posting scripture and given your subjective interpretation of it?

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
video

Thanks for posting these videos. I think he clearly lays out the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in an easy to understand way and hopefully the video will clear up any misunderstandings or strawmen of protestant belief. I don't think there's anything that needs added or removed from the explanation in the 2nd video in particular.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding protestant beliefs as a former protestant... But who decides what things in scripture mean? If scripture alone is the sole infallible and inspired rule of faith for the church, then who decides what Jesus meant when He said, "This is my body"?

I would say that He meant that it was His body. Others would argue that it represents His body. Others would pretend that that verse wasn't there. So which is it? Only one can be true. Who determines that? On what authority do they make that determination?

It seems you're conflating solA scriptura and solO scriptura, mainline protestants accept the authority of the church, be that the council or presbytery and their confessional documents. While only scripture is infallible, the church is entirely possible in being inerrant. Regarding Luke 22:19 The reformers all held communion is not simply a symbol there is something supernatural going on, Calvinists hold to the spiritual presence, Lutherans will say "Is means is!" and hold to a more Isaiah 55:9 sort of interpretation. Reality tells us if you cut someone open and the only thing they've had is communion you'll find bread and wine in their stomach, not flesh and blood.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:

quote:

Let's not move from the theological error of Sola Scriptura just yet. The case for the Eucharist has recently been made on this thread, and we can revisit it again, but I think we need to investigate Sola Scriptura more.

You brought up John 6 and the Last Supper. I was simply replying to your initiation of that topic.

quote:

Scripture Itself Points to Tradition and Church Authority:

1 Tim 3:15: “The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.”

2 Thess 2:15: “Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, whether by word or by letter.”

Acts 8:31: The Ethiopian eunuch needs someone to interpret.

All 3 of those verses you cited are great proof texts I would use to support my theological positions but it seems like you are posting them in support of your position so, again, please give me the citation or a link to where the Roman Catholic Church has given the accurate and infallible interpretation of these texts, otherwise aren't you engaging in the very thing you're condemning by posting scripture and given your subjective interpretation of it?

The Roman Catholic Church predates the texts. The texts were written by individuals who practiced the Catholic faith. It wasn't until the 1500s that anyone claimed Sola Scriptura. The traditions, the sacraments, the teachings, and the authority all predate the scriptures that the protestants claim are their sole authority. It really doesn't make any sense at all when you think about it.

The church was infallible enough for protestants to use their canon of scriptures, but it either stops there or they pretend that that's not how it happened.

So, if you need a citation, check out the bible. If you need further citation read the early Church fathers. If you need more, read the Church councils. If you need more, read the Saints. They ALL have one thing in common: They are Catholic and they are authoritative.

The Catholic Church hasn't changed a single dogma in 2000 years. The only thing protestants have come to agree upon is the rejection of the Catholic Church. Think about that for a minute. Estimates go as high as 40000 different protestant denominations, and none of them are the same. There can only be one truth. Is it the 2000 year old Church that traces it's founder to Jesus Christ and the Apostles or is it one of the other 40000 (who don't make that claim)?

So your answer for where I can find the proper interpretation of the 3 verses you used to support your position is to check the Bible? Wouldn't this just cause more confusion and misinterpretation according to you?

As far as reading the church fathers, church councils, and the saints, I have read them and they don't all agree. So where am I to go when they disagree? It sounded like you're saying they are all Catholic so I can just trust everything they say. And I'm sure you have several points of disagreement with many church fathers. For instance, you don't agree with everything Origen or Justin Martyr believed or taught do you?

As a side note, your claim that the Roman Catholic Church predates the text of the New Testament and that dogma hasn't changed in 2000 years is simply untrue but let's not go down that rabbit hole now.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackTalonJHP:
So your answer for where I can find the proper interpretation of the 3 verses you used to support your position is to check the Bible? Wouldn't this just cause more confusion and misinterpretation according to you?

As far as reading the church fathers, church councils, and the saints, I have read them and they don't all agree. So where am I to go when they disagree? It sounded like you're saying they are all Catholic so I can just trust everything they say. And I'm sure you have several points of disagreement with many church fathers. For instance, you don't agree with everything Origen or Justin Martyr believed or taught do you?

As a side note, your claim that the Roman Catholic Church predates the text of the New Testament and that dogma hasn't changed in 2000 years is simply untrue but let's not go down that rabbit hole now.

That’s exactly the problem with Sola Scriptura. If everyone turns to the Bible alone, then (without an authoritative interpreter) you get conflicting interpretations. That’s why there are thousands of Protestant denominations, all claiming to follow Scripture, and many disagree on fundamental doctrines (baptism, salvation, communion, church governance, etc.).

The Catholic doesn’t say, “Don’t read the Bible.” Rather, we say: “Read it in communion with the Church that wrote, compiled, and canonized it.”

It’s true not every Church Father got every detail right. The Fathers aren’t individually infallible; but when they speak in consensus on matters of faith and morals, their unified witness is powerful and authoritative.

An example would be that every Church Father affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist—not symbolically, but truly.

Another example is the consensus of the Fathers is cited by ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea, Chalcedon) to define dogma.

The Church does not rely on a single saint or theologian for doctrine but discerns truth through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (the Church’s teaching authority, guided by the Holy Spirit)

This prevents the confusion of private judgment. Protestants appeal to private interpretation alone, while Catholics appeal to the living Church Christ instituted.

Finally, going down the rabbit hole, the claim that the Church has changed over time misunderstands the difference between development and corruption. Catholic dogma does not change in essence; it deepens in clarity and understanding. Like a tree growing from a seed, the deposit of faith remains the same. The Church preserves, not reinvents, the faith once delivered to the saints.

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:That’s exactly the problem with Sola Scriptura. If everyone turns to the Bible alone, then (without an authoritative interpreter) you get conflicting interpretations.

Respectfully sir, I've asked you to point me to the authoritative interpretation for those 3 Bible verses you cited because we have a very different interpretation of them and you haven't given me any specific answer.

quote:

This prevents the confusion of private judgment. Protestants appeal to private interpretation alone, while Catholics appeal to the living Church Christ instituted.

I don't want to be confused. I would really like to engage with you on these verses and other areas of scripture that we disagree on so that perhaps I can better understand why my interpretation is incorrect but your answer never points me to what the correct interpretation is that the Roman Catholic Church provides. Your reply appeals to the authority of your church and when I ask you where I can learn the authoritative interpretation of the verses you posted, you provide the same ambiguous answer appealing to the authority and traditions of your church.

I fully understand your claim that your church has the authoritative interpretation of scripture, but if that's the case then there should be a way to examine this claim to see whether it's true or not and I'm simply asking you to provide me something that I can use to examine whether or not what your church teaches is true, just as the Bereans did. If I were to accept your interpretation of the scripture that you posted without examining it I wouldn't be acting like a good Berean.

Christ never instituted the Catholic Church. He instituted local, visible independent churches.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
Christ never instituted the Catholic Church. He instituted local, visible independent churches.

They were universal (or Catholic) in their beliefs. There was a magisterium. There was tradition. They did not have the bible.

I'd like to share this short letter from T. l. Frazier, penned in 1991. It touches on all of the Sola Scriptura discussion we have been having, as well as the Eucharist. The discussion is starting to devolve into gotcha statements and some misread hostility on the part of a few of us, myself included. I thought I'd share this and let it simmer. I'm not here to bicker, I'm here to spread the fullness of the truth.



At Easter 1986, I left “Bible-only” Fundamentalism to join the Catholic Church. What I am going to write is not intended to be a triumphalistic manifesto for Catholicism. I do not pretend any special gift in the area of apologetics or the exposition of Sacred Scripture. What I have to relate is simply an abbreviated account of one man’s struggle toward the fullness of faith.

As a child I had virtually no Christian training aside from a children’s picture Bible. It wasn’t until my senior year of high school that I learned of Jesus Christ. I had picked up The Living Bible and started reading the Gospel of Luke. I was not struck by what I read—no, I was overwhelmed. At that moment I gave my allegiance to Jesus Christ, to be forever his friend and follower.

I found a pocket-sized New Testament and was never without it. My new friend Jesus and I became inseparable. Figuring that Jesus must have friends other than I, I decided to find a good church so Jesus’ friends could be my friends as well. I found the mainline, liberal Protestant denominations more interested in men called Bultmann and Tillich than in my friend Jesus and my little New Testament. I quickly fell into Evangelicalism and Bible Fundamentalism without even considering the Catholic Church.


Listen to the audio version of this content
At Easter 1986, I left “Bible-only” Fundamentalism to join the Catholic Church. What I am going to write is not intended to be a triumphalistic manifesto for Catholicism. I do not pretend any special gift in the area of apologetics or the exposition of Sacred Scripture. What I have to relate is simply an abbreviated account of one man’s struggle toward the fullness of faith.

As a child I had virtually no Christian training aside from a children’s picture Bible. It wasn’t until my senior year of high school that I learned of Jesus Christ. I had picked up The Living Bible and started reading the Gospel of Luke. I was not struck by what I read—no, I was overwhelmed. At that moment I gave my allegiance to Jesus Christ, to be forever his friend and follower.

I found a pocket-sized New Testament and was never without it. My new friend Jesus and I became inseparable. Figuring that Jesus must have friends other than I, I decided to find a good church so Jesus’ friends could be my friends as well. I found the mainline, liberal Protestant denominations more interested in men called Bultmann and Tillich than in my friend Jesus and my little New Testament. I quickly fell into Evangelicalism and Bible Fundamentalism without even considering the Catholic Church.


Over the following years I consumed Scripture and Calvinistic literature to learn about my new Christian Faith. My biblical and theological background became considerable, though admittedly eclectic. Indeed, my home came to resemble an outlet of the Lighthouse bookstore chain.

Yet not all was perfect in paradise. The more I studied, the more I realized the depth of the theological differences resulting from divergent interpretations of Scripture. Even among the Evangelical sects there exist controversies over such basic questions as whether or not a Christian could ever lose his salvation.

Operating under the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, taking the Bible alone as the source of all Christian truth, I constantly was being challenged by conflicting doctrines claiming scriptural warrant. While some of these biblical “warrants” were patently superficial, others raised genuinely complex issues over which a person’s spiritual life could conceivably stand or fall.

I saw that what sola scriptura needed for credibility was a more decisive method of exegesis to obtain greater theological agreement. This is especially important if one believes we are saved sola fides, by faith alone.

If we are saved by faith alone, the issue of what this faith is to consist of becomes crucial. Sola scriptura must be able to provide the theological foundation upon which to build a comprehensive and unambiguous faith—or else the entire Reformation is a failure. Like any Protestant, it was this decisive and biblical Christianity for which I was searching.

I suppose the revolution really began during a casual reading of the Gospel of John. I remember going through the sixth chapter where, during the Passover, Jesus gives thanks (eucharistein—whence the word “Eucharist“) and feeds the five thousand with two barley loaves and two small fish. After this miracle Jesus proclaims himself the “bread of life” and proceeds to declare to the crowd, “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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day” (verses 53-54).”

I was shaken by the directness of the entire passage from verse 51 to the end of the chapter. As a faithful Fundamentalist, I had always interpreted the passage metaphorically. Yet the crowd, including the disciples themselves, were understanding Jesus literally and were stunned with disbelief. Jesus does not clarify himself to the Twelve as he usually did with the parables he told. Rather, Jesus simply responds, “Does this shock you?” I began to wonder whether Jesus could be speaking literally when he said we must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

I knew little of Catholicism, but I did know that Catholics believed that the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper literally became the body and blood of Christ when the priest said the words of institution found in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. I reviewed the entire New Testament carefully and noted that the Eucharist is intimately connected with Christian worship (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; Jude 12; 2 Pet. 2:13). In fact, it seemed 1 Corinthians 11:20-21 and 5:7b-8 implied a regular celebration of the Eucharist.

As for the idea of the “real presence” of Jesus in the Eucharist, the dire warning of Paul—that those who partake unworthily are guilty of “the body and blood of the Lord”—did not lend itself well to my symbolical notion of the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:27-32). Why were Christians in grave sin when doing violence to this particular “symbol” and not to other Christian symbols?

Moreover, 1 Corinthians 10:14-18 speaks of us “participating” in the body and blood of Christ at the Eucharist in the same way Israel participated in the sacrifices of the altar—which would be by actually, not symbolically, eating the sacrifice of the Passover. I was beginning to think that a literal understanding of John 6:53-54 wouldn’t be entirely out of line.

Still, I wasn’t led to consider Catholicism seriously. After all, I’d seen Scripture used to support all sorts of propositions, and I was sure the Bible wasn’t teaching “Romanism.” It seemed a strange idea to “accept Christ as personal Lord and Savior” not only cognitively and purposefully, but Eucharistically as well. I assumed I must have been reading ideas into the text, and I let the matter drop for more worthy pursuits.

One of these pursuits was a book of ancient Christian literature. I thought it would be fascinating to learn how Christians who immediately followed the apostolic era understood Scripture. Perhaps I would glean a method of interpreting the Bible that would liberate the average Protestant from so much vicious sectarianism.

I was reading the epistles of Ignatius, the third bishop of Antioch after Peter and Evodius and a disciple of the apostle John. Around the year 110, Roman soldiers were leading Ignatius to Rome where martyrdom awaited him. On his journey the holy bishop wrote letters to local churches.

In his letter to the church at Smyrna, Ignatius condemned heretics who did not hold that Christ had an actual, physical body; probably he was referring to the Gnostics. John may have had these same people in mind when he penned 1 John 1:1-4.

To refute them, Ignatius wrote, “They even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his goodness afterwards raised up again” (7:1).

I believe I nearly suffered cardiac arrest. This was the bishop of Antioch, the city where Jesus’ followers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26) and a major center of Christianity. This was a man who had heard the Good News from the lips of the apostle John himself, the very apostle who wrote that shocking passage in his Gospel. Writing merely ten or fifteen years after the death of John, Ignatius refers to the “real presence” of Christ in the Eucharist as though it were common knowledge throughout the Church!

And then, to add insult to injury, Ignatius went on to say, “The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself or by some person authorized by him [that is, a duly ordained priest]. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church” (8:1, 2).

Could it get much worse? Yes. Ignatius advised the church at Ephesus “to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of the bread–the medicine of immortality and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore” (20:3). This was completely intolerable.

I suspected diabolic mischief was afoot to subvert the true Evangelical faith. These could not be legitimate documents. Researching their backgrounds, though, I learned that these epistles were so highly regarded in the early Christian community that they were held as part of Scripture in many churches. I also found that nearly all modern Protestant scholars consider them authentic.

Even so staunch an anti-Catholic as Henry H. Halley validated them and, in reference to patristic literature in general, commented that these “writings are extremely valuable” and “how we wish there were more of them” (Halley’s Bible Handbook, 24th ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), p. 749).

Intrigued, I began to pursue this matter more fully and came across Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons. Irenaeus was a student of the celebrated Polycarp, the same Polycarp who, tradition states, was made bishop of Smyrna by the apostle John (who was forever popping up in my study of the Eucharist).

Condemning Gnosticism, Irenaeus wrote in his treatise Against Heresies that “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist . . . how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the Body and Blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him?” (5:2).

Also significant was a certain first-century church manual probably composed in what is today known as Lebanon. Called the Didache and known commonly as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, it was written as early as A.D. 60, making it older than some of the Gospels themselves. It was held to be so authoritative that throughout the Christian world of the second century much of it is cited in other writings, such as the Epistle of Barnabas. Among its tantalizing contents are instructions for baptism, the treatment to be accorded to visiting prophets, and the oldest condemnation of abortion known in the Church.

At the very center of this document (chapters nine and ten) is to be found a set Eucharistic liturgy, the prayers of which are closely modeled after Jewish prayers for the dinner table. The absolute holiness of the Eucharist is stressed: “For the Lord’s own saying applies here, `Give not that which is holy unto dogs.'” This sacred aspect of the Eucharist is reinforced at the end: “Whosoever is holy, let him approach. Whoso is not, let him repent.” There is a strong relationship between the Eucharist and the final act of salvation at the Second Coming.

Ever since the discovery of the Didache in 1873, I would suppose it has been difficult for any knowledgeable person to assert the apostles taught anything except a Eucharistic Christianity. Christian worship is summarized this way: “Assemble on the Lord’s day and break bread and offer the Eucharist, but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one” (14:1). Nowhere in the early Church did I find any evidence for the notion of a purely symbolic Eucharist celebrated only occasionally.

What disturbed me more than anything I’d found up to this point was a passage from the famous Christian apologist Justin Martyr. His First Apology (A.D. 148) contains a description of worship in the ancient Church widely cited by Protestant writers.

Let me again cite Dr. Halley: “Here is Justin Martyr’s picture of early Christian worship: ‘On Sunday a meeting is held of all who live in the cities and villages, and a section is read from the memoirs of the apostles [that is, the Gospels and epistles] and the writings of the prophets, as long as time permits. When the reading is finished, the president, in a discourse, gives the admonition and exhortation to imitate these noble things. After this we all arise and offer a common prayer.

‘At the close of the prayer, as we have before described, bread and wine and thanks for them according to his ability, and the congregation answers, “Amen.” Then the consecrated elements are distributed to each one and partaken of, and are carried by the deacons to the houses of the absent. The wealthy and the willing then give contributions according to their free will, and this collection is deposited with the president, who therewith supplies orphans, widows, prisoners, strangers, and all who are in want'” (Halley’s Bible Handbook, 763-764).

I had seen this passage cited often in the works of Evangelical writers, yet never had I seen the immediately preceding section. It says: “For we do not take these things as ordinary bread and ordinary drink. Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh.

“Indeed, the apostles, in the records left by them which are called Gospels, have thus passed on that which was enjoined upon them: Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks said, ‘Do this in memory of me, this is my body.’ Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ‘This is my blood,’ and he imparted it to them alone” (Apology I, 66).

The Protestant tendency to “sterilize” early Christian history of peculiarly Catholic elements came to my notice for the first time here, and the tendency became more apparent the more I researched Christian history from the primary sources. I found ancient evidence for the papacy, apostolic succession, baptism by infusion, the veneration of saints and relics, and so on, all explicit within the first century following the apostolic era. In fact, much of the evidence was within the first 50 years.

John Henry Newman, the most significant Protestant convert to Catholicism ever, apparently was quite right when he stated that a knowledge of history is the death of Protestantism. At least that’s how it turned out for me. I might also suggest that a fear of history is part of the underlying rationale for the sola scriptura doctrine—it serves to insulate the believer from the historical facts, thereby allowing the Fundamentalist to create a mythological past in which he finds himself one of the “faithful remnant.”

I had discovered an impressive method of interpreting Scripture through the study of ancient Christian records. Using this method, I had determined that the apostolic Church, while certainly being Scripture-oriented and evangelical, was Catholic and not Protestant. Approximately three years after that casual reading of the Gospel of John, I joined the Catholic Church, naturally adopting the Beloved Disciple as my patron.

Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. I would extend this to the spiritual life. Does history disprove Fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture? Is Reformation religion truly “Bible Christianity” or merely the private interpretations which Peter warned about in his epistle? I contend that anyone honestly trying to answer these questions will find himself in the Catholic Church, “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
Christ never instituted the Catholic Church. He instituted local, visible independent churches.

They were universal (or Catholic) in their beliefs. There was a magisterium. There was tradition. They did not have the bible.

Christ didn’t have the NT either. But he had the OT and he knew it front to back. And He is prophesied approx. 400 times in it. No mention of Mary interceding for us in the OT either. Peter never went to Rome. Only ‘tradition’ says he did.

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:

quote:

Originally posted by Cous2492:

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
Christ never instituted the Catholic Church. He instituted local, visible independent churches.

They were universal (or Catholic) in their beliefs. There was a magisterium. There was tradition. They did not have the bible.

Christ didn’t have the NT either. But he had the OT and he knew it front to back. And He is prophesied approx. 400 times in it. No mention of Mary interceding for us in the OT either. Peter never went to Rome. Only ‘tradition’ says he did.

Did Mary intercede for the bride, groom, and guests at Cana? Did she intercede for all of mankind at the annunciation? How about the woman in Revelation? What is that all about?

I think your statements on Peter are just plain baloney. Typical anti-catholic revisionist history.


Edited to add:

I got to thinking about Mary in the OT, and there is some really interesting typology. I always think of 2 Samuel and John. John used such stunningly similar language that he had to have been making the parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. Catholics often call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant. John continues that parallel in Revelation. There is an Ark that appears, then suddenly he is talking about the Woman.

In 2 Samuel 6, the Ark of the Covenant travels to the hill country of Judah and stays for three months, bringing blessings to the house it enters. Likewise, in Luke 1, Mary—carrying Jesus, the new covenant—travels to the hill country of Judah and stays with Elizabeth for three months, and John the Baptist leaps in her womb, recognizing the presence of the Lord. Just as David exclaims, “How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?” Elizabeth echoes, “And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” These striking parallels reveal Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. This imagery comes full circle in Revelation 11:19–12:1, where the Ark is seen in heaven and immediately followed by a vision of a woman clothed with the sun—pointing to Mary, the Mother of God, as the Ark of the New Covenant who bears Christ, the Word made flesh.