First of all I would like to welcome you as well. Secondly, I would ask that you be very clear here. Are you saying that the Christian “dispensation” is over? Do you remember as a Catholic hearing about the “New and Everlasting Covenant” in His blood? Do you remember Jesus telling us that he would not leave us orphans, but would remain with us until the end of time; that is, until He comes again in glory and there is a new heaven and a new earth?
Steve, thanks.
Yes, the Covenant of Christ is eternal, but you would agree that it must eventually be fulfilled by His return. The fulfillment of a covenant does not mean its end, it persists in a state of fulfillment. The covenant of Abraham has not ended, it has been fulfilled. We believe that the covenant of Christ has been fulfilled, yet it remains eternal. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, yet my words shall not pass away”
Of course that means “the end of time” has already occurred, and He has come in Glory, and there is a new heaven and a new earth. Have you ever really though about what a “new heaven” can possibly mean? We can imagine the earth being destroyed, etc., but what about heaven? Think about it. Does the Catholic Church, or any other Church have an explanation for that?
If a “new heaven” means a new Holy Dispensation from God, then that is possible, it conforms to reason, and is entirely consistent with how God has guided man in the past. The best example of that in this context is actually the development of Christianity. You would agree that when Christ was born and when He died on the cross, the world changed. It was no longer the same world, yet who among men understood that or believed it? Heaven also changed. Jesus said you can not put “new wine into old wineskins” which obviously is referring to a new Divine Revelation requiring new forms and institutions (the Jewish ones were no longer adequate).
I would like you to consider something, and that is the fact that the Bible, the only canonized record of the life and words of Jesus Christ, is a product of the Catholic Church. Out of over 400 texts that were considered, only 27 of those made it into the new Testament. Their validity as to being inspired Scripture was measured against the already existing (for nearly 400 years) Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church; the deposit of faith handed down orally from the Apostles, as reflected in her early teachings and liturgies. The Bible is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing ( i. e. Paul preached for thirty days straight in the Temple. Not a word of it is mentioned in Scripture).
I basically agree with everything stated in this paragraph. We owe a great debt to the Church Fathers, and also the Jewish scribes, Masorites, etc. who preserved the Hebrew scriptures.
My entire point in laying this out is that one cannot properly interpret Christian Scripture without looking through the lens of Catholic teaching. The sacred texts were chosen because they accurately reflected the truth that the Church already possessed. When they are interpreted in a manner that ignores the Sacred Tradition from which they came they cannot be properly understood.
I agree with this also. Interpretation requires historical understanding and knowledge, but of course that knowledge must also be enlightened by the Holy Spirit, which guided the early Church. Pronouncements by those who opposed the new Faith of Christ may have been historical, but are not reliable guides. The same thing is occurring with the development of the Baha’i Dispensation.
So when you decide on your own personal authority that the Eucharist, the source and summit of the Catholic faith, is a mere symbol, please keep in mind that you are disagreeing with all of the early Church Fathers, students of the Apostles such as Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch; Church doctors such as Ambrose, Jerome, Basil, Athanasius; incredible minds such as Augustine and Aquinas. I could go on and on and on. The point is that this belief has been examined by each succeeding generation for 2000 years. As a former Catholic, I would ask you to re-examine your position on this most important question. It is so important, in fact, that if you are correct, that it is merely a symbol, then the Catholic Church would cease to exist.
Each person must decide what he believes. I said when I introduced myself that I would not have left the Catholic Church for Protestantism, nor Buddhism, Hinduism or another religion, until I discovered Baha’u’llah. As you are certainly aware, transubtantiation does not involve any material change to the bread or wine, the change can not be measured by any instrument. It must be taken on faith and faith alone that it is the body and blood of Christ. There are many religious truths that likewise can not be measured scientifically. That must not be a barrier to any religious person.
In the same way, Baha’is today take as a matter faith that there is a new heaven and a new earth. “The world is one country and mankind are its citizens.” “The well being of mankind, its peace and security are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established.” “These fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the Most Great Peace shall come.”
