Debate The Holy Eucharist not Sola Scriptura

[Melchior]

sparkle:

Why would you even say this when you know as Catholics, we don’t believe in “Bible alone”? Isn’t this just simply appealing to the Protestant mindset?

So a catholic cannot use the Bible to defend a Catholic position? What if that position happens to be thoroughly defensible from the Bible? What if I said I can show you the details of Christ’s Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection using the Bible alone. Is that not true? Is that somehow a Protestant statement?

Anytime the word Bible is followed by the word alone does not mean someone is taking a Sola Scriptura position. Would you object if a person said “I can prove my point to you with the Council of Trent alone”. Does that mean that that person, by using the appropriate material for a certain discussion to prove a point must, be supporting the idea that Trent is the sole rule of faith for the Catholic? Of course not.

Mel

 

[RNRobert]

sparkle:

Why would you even say this when you know as Catholics, we don’t believe in “Bible alone”? Isn’t this just simply appealing to the Protestant mindset?

I think perhaps if you debate with some Protestants you have to appeal to their mindset (at first, anyways). They may not pay any heed to arguments about Church Fathers, Councils, etc. Patrick Madrid’s Surprised by Truth tells the conversion story of Tim Staples, who was an Assemblies of God minister. While he was in the Marines, he met a Catholic named Matt Dula, who really knew his faith and was able to successfully argue the Catholic position from the Bible alone. Tim wrote:

The most frustrating thing about our discussions was that Matt never appealed to any Church tradition or any Papal teaching; he stuck strictly to Scripture. He didn’t have to rely solely on the Bible, he could have brought forth a mountain of evidence from Catholicism from church history, but he was willing to meet me at my level and use Scripture alone.

I think this is especially true with fundamentalists, who don’t recognize anything but the Bible as authoritative. With them I think you would have to stick to Scripture by itself to get a hearing for Catholic belief.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

RNRobert:

I think this is especially true with fundamentalists, who don’t recognize anything but the Bible as authoritative. With them I think you would have to stick to Scripture by itself to get a hearing for Catholic belief.

I agree! The point is to be able to defend catholic faith from inside the Bible when talking to fundamentalists. But it is very difficult because they (the fundamentalists) don’t listen very well to catholics. They see us as “the whore of Babylon”, the pope as a beast in Revelation etc.

How do you by Sola scriptura defend to call priests for father and how do you defend confession?

G.G.

 

[RNRobert]

Gratias Grace:

How do you by Sola scriptura defend to call priests for father and how do you defend confession?

G.G.

Calling priests father:

**Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus ****through the gospel. **1 Corinthians 4:15, NAB (the KJV reads the red portion as “for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.”

Confession:

**And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. **Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained. John 20:22-23, NAB

Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil (this also gives the Biblical basis for the anointing of the sick, doncha think? )**and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. **If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. James 5:14-16, NAB.

---

**NOW, **I would like a fundamentalist to tell me where the word “Trinity” is in the Bible. I asked a fundamentalist on this forum several times to give me the chapter and verse where I could find it, but he never answered me.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Good responses here. It is clear that although it is important to build up the Catholic case rather than tear down the Protestant one, you can’t ignore the inherent shortcomings of Sola Scriptura because it is the unacknowledged philosophy of private judgement trumping all. So I like to show the biblical support (and I make very clear the difference between support and proof) of any given Catholic doctrine. Usually the non-Catholic will talk about it as an erroneous interpretation, but there is the rub: All he is doing is showing that the passage can be interpreted differently. What else is new? You have to keep coming back to the issue of authority and demonstrating that the Bible as the sole authority is no authority at all. Without a living, authentic, authoritative, and very real, visible church, Scripture is reduced to abstraction, or a “dead letter” as the catechism puts it.

Scott

 

[Maccabees]

Well as has been pointed out Sola Scriptura is a big stumbling block for protestants but I think its a co-stumbling block the the reformation was founded on the solas of Luther remebers sola scriptura and sola fide.
Once you overcome sola scriptura you have to start proving that catholic teaching on salvation in the the proprer Biblbicla hermaneutica and that solad fide is faullty.

Luther said is was this doctrine that the reformatnion rose or fall. I really think when fola fide falls your status as a protestant is temporary and your on your way deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

It is rightly pointed out that lutherans do beleive a semblance of our teaching of the eucharist the differences I don’t think their is a stuymbling block its the two solas and here is one that is most overlooked our view is that the mass is a sacrifice Lutherans don’t beleive this. Which is suprising when one considers the eucharistic meal as sacrifice is rather explicit in both the western and eastern church fathers and still proclaimed explicitly in the catholic and orthodox communions.
I think Luther missed the boat on this one as a overreaction to midevil excess. But hey I think he did that a lot I just scratch my head of why he changed this. And yes I have his arguments but then I read the church fathers and its cut and died in the apostlic tradition.
But for the vast majority of protestants especially in this country (unless your in the Northwest) Lutherans are in the minority of protestanst as far as the teaching of the Real Presence. The topic is quite in the catholic favor as most protestanst reject this all too literal teaching for them. I think it comes in quite handy in catholic-evangelical dialogue.

 

[mercygate]

puzzleannie:

Christian apologists do not “go in for the kill”
If apologetics is not evangelism, driven by desire to share the fullness of life in Christ, then it degenerates to personal pride, need for dominance, need to be always right, about the apologist, not about Christ.

AMEN! And again, I say, AMEN! We don’t need to win a debate; all we need to do is share the truth in peace. Even when we “win” a case, the person may not be able to acknowledge that except in the privacy of his own chamber and after many years. Plant the seed. Plant the truth. Strongarm nobody; our case is sure. God does the conversion, not us.

As for Eucharist / Sola Scriptura, i.e., this thread:

Chris stated that he believed that “the Catholic Church stands or falls on the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, not Prot SS.”

But for Protestants, Sola Scriptura is the stand-or-fall doctrine of everything else. You cannot begin to share a theology of the Eucharist until you understand how the Church is the author of Scripture and its guardian.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

RNRobert:

Calling priests father:

**Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus ****through the gospel. **1 Corinthians 4:15, NAB (the KJV reads the red portion as “for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.”

Confession:

**And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. **Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained. John 20:22-23, NAB

Thank you, RNRobert, espesially for the ref. to the “father”. Fundamentalists have made me stuck on that one.

About John 20:22-23, I have used that with no success. It’s like the meaning is distorted to them. They have said that we are to forgive each other (but not through a priest) and then ask for Gods forgiveness. Since they don’t identify Peter as the ROCK, they don’t accept apostolic succession. They attack the words used in the confessional. The use of the the priests words **"I forgive … " ** , they say are blasphemous, because Jesus Christ is the only mediator between man and God the Father. According to them, only Christ can forgive.

For me it’s very clear that when Jesus breathed on the disciples and said that they were to forgive and retain, he meant it literary.
But that is not so clear for persons that not believe in apostolic succession.

G.G.

 

[MariaG]

There are some good points all around here. As a infant baptism Catholic, but nothing else, my first knowledge of God basically came from fundalmentalist groups. I was protected by the grace of God from the deep seated prejudice against the Catholic Church and the Bible verses that were presented to me as proof of the Catholic Church being in error.

That being said, I came home to the Catholic Church because of Scripture teaching of the Real Presence. I couldn’t understand the convolted thinking one had to go through to make it mean a ‘symbol’ only. After that, the whole Solo Scriptura (which by the way I never heard of till here) fell down completely.

I think we need to focus on the individual we are trying to share these truths to instead of a doctrine. I know some who are very into numbers and Peter’s name being mentioned 195 times would be very significant. Others would blow that off like nothing.

As a Catholic Christian, I do accept Sacred Tradition. However, because of the direction I came, I accept it because the Bible tells me so. With Fundamental Christians, any proof must first and PRIMARILY come from the Bible. Church Fathers are good for showing that see Here it is in Scripture, and the early church believed this way too. But frankly, I never heard of Church Fathers until I came back to the Catholic Church. I don’t know if I would have “heard” what someone said about them. I do know that while still in the Protestant Churches, I bought a Catechism and when I looked up different Catholic Teachings, if it was not referenced to the Bible, I did not put any weight into the reasoning. It had to be explained strictly from Scripture. I was looking for Truth. I know the Bible is Truth. Therefore, it must be explained in light of the Truth that I already know.

I can’t emphasize it enough. **History can be rewritten but I know God protected His Holy Word. ** This is the mindset, at least of fundamental Christians.

Sometimes, the best you can hope for is an acknowledgement that Catholics do find the teaching in the Bible. You can disagree on interpretation, but it is Biblical. Never ever give in on the fact that the Catholic Church is Biblical. In fact, even though I know it to be true from a Catholic perspective, It “feels” wrong when people say, The Bible sprung from the Church. My immediate response is NO! It came from God. You can’t argue with feelings. But we can present the truth. For Fundamentalists, that truth begins and ends in the Bible.

I hope this helps some to “get into the mind” of Fundamentalist Christians.

 

[RNRobert]

Gratias Grace:

About John 20:22-23, I have used that with no success. It’s like the meaning is distorted to them.

G.G.

That, I think, is a problem with fundamentalists- THEIRS is the only valid interpretation. There was a fundie on this board (now banned) who basically accused Catholics of "doing violence tor “attacking” Scripture whenever the Catholic interpretation of a passage disagreed with his.

 

[chrisg93]

MariaG,
Great post. I am the only Catholic at the abortion mill with 10-12 Evangelicals. They are truely wonderful pro-life heros and I have grown to love them. But the first week they acused me of idolatry (crucifix), cannabalism (Holy Eucharist), paganism (Blessed Virgin Mary) and Satan worship (Jesusit rite of murder). They actually believed this stuff!

I think I am making progress with them but you never know. Thanks for your advice. Love any more advice that you have.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

chrisg93:

I think I am making progress with them but you never know.

I think it is very difficult to make progress with fundamentalists. Where one can make progress is with evangelical christians who have taken in only some of the fundamentalists “doctrines”.

MariaG’s advice about that “we need to focus on the individual we are trying to share these truths to instead of a doctrine”, will be very useful, I think.

Catholics are of course, like others, unike and different persons, but we share in the same dogmas and doctrines. Protestants don’t do that. It will be our task to know our faith well, and to try to “diagnose”: “Which of all the possible mix of protestant doctrine am I dealing with this time, and how do I present catholisism to this special person”?

I also think mutual respect is necessary.

G.G.

 

[MariaG]

Chris,
You are doing a good work being a witness for life in the darkness of that abortion mill. Thank you.

More advice? Here goes. Never ever use God’s name in vain. I know some Catholic who say “Oh my God”. When I asked one about it, they say that the situation that they are talking about, they literally, say outloud, and mentally pray Lord help this situation. Evangelicals will only see and hear the Lord’s name in vain.

Never ever swear.

But most of all, share the wonderous things God is doing in your life. Evangelicals see God and thank God for every little thing in their life. They see God as being intimately involved and caring about every action in their life. (Me too!) For example: I was driving down the street, really down and questioning the direction my life was taking and then I saw a man with a t-shirt that said JESUS SAVES. I realized nothing else really mattered. Thank you God for placing that man in my path. Or the time that money is short and you get a rebate in the mail that is 4 months late. God must of known that I would need that money now.

Sharing these “little moments” and giving God the glory and credit can be so helpful in just helping them to see you as a Christian. Most Catholics are not comfortable taking like this, but most Evangelical feel if you are not comfortable praising God, you probably aren’t really saved. “How can you not shout from the heavens all He has done for you?”

Also, if you talk about the saints and Mary, (which I don’t recommend unless they bring it up) never say I prayed to Mary. Always say I asked Mary to pray for me about… Praying is a worship reserved only for God. The idea of talking to the body of Christ who has departed is not only foreign it is divination. If you offer to pray for them often, it will be easier to help understand the intercession of Saints.

Gotta go,
Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

Chris,
One more thing, do you carry a Bible with you? If not, put one in your car. When a discussion may come up referring to Scripture, say hold on a second, and go get your Bible from the car. (This is assuming you regularly read and use it and know where books of the bible are found. It would be worse to crack open a new bible and not know where anything was!)

This may seem like a superficial thing, but most Evangelicals (at least the ones you described) do not think Catholic teachings are even in the Bible. (Confession is one of my favorite to show people, next to the real presence. The Bible does not say go and teach forgiveness, which is what interpretation most Protestants put on it, but it says go and forgive.)

Another side point. Although they are probably very familiar with the Bible, there are many things they probably don’t know. Like the last verse in John telling us not everything was written down, 2 Thess 2:15 hold fast to traditions whether oral or by letter, and this one blew me away, In john 21:15-19 where Jesus asked Peter 3 times if he loved him, I had always read it as feed my sheep 3 times. I can remember doing Bible study on these verses, yet I never realized it said feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. 3 DIFFERENT things. I did not realize until just last week that the Bible said this! (I recognized the primacy of Peter in other ways, but this was mind blowing to me to realize I had been taught in Prostestant churches for years that it was feed my sheep. It never went farther than that. Lambs being lay people, sheep being ministers of the lambs.)

There are many things that I am coming to realize that even though I have been in the Catholic Church now for 5 years, since the majority of my studies had been in Protestant Churches, I still have much of the mindset of a Protestant. But every new thing I learn gives me such great joy. And I hope I never tire of the desire to “find it in the Bible”.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[chrisg93]

MariaG,
We are so on the same wavelenght. Today they critisized me for using a crucifix and not a cross. They said it was idol worship. I pulled my Bible out of the car and showed them 1 Cor “we preach Christ crucified” and " I have determined to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified". Made a big impression on them.

Great point about “feed my lambs…” I didn’t realize that eigher. Thank you so much for that, I owe you bigtime.

Keep 'em comming.

Love you like a sister,
Chris

 

[mayra_hart]

protestant often cite john 6:35:" iam the bread of life;he who comes to me shall not hunger,and he who believes in me shall never thirst". they claim that when jesus calls himself the "bread of life"he is simply saying that if we believe in him,he will nourished us physically. protestants claims that we “eat” and “drink” jesus , our spiritual food, by comming to and believing in him. however we must read the rest of this eucharistic discourse, especially verses 48-58,where jesus tells us exactly what he means by calling himself “bread”. the bread jesus is speaking is not merely a symbol for spiritual nourishment. jesus tells us plainly that the bread is his own flesh(verse 51), which we must eat in order to have eternal life. when jesus explains that the bread of life is literally his flesh, we must accept his clear words.

 

[edwinG]

Scott Waddell:

I see no reason to bust Phil’s chops over a figure of speech.

Scott/QUOTE
Hi,
I think it is important to remember Matthew 12:36, 37 NKJV 'But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak they will give account of itin the day of judgement."
“For by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned”. edwinG

 

[RBushlow]

chrisg93:

MariaG,
We are so on the same wavelenght. Today they critisized me for using a crucifix and not a cross. They said it was idol worship. I pulled my Bible out of the car and showed them 1 Cor “we preach Christ crucified” and " I have determined to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified". Made a big impression on them.

Great point about “feed my lambs…” I didn’t realize that eigher. Thank you so much for that, I owe you bigtime.

Keep 'em comming.

Love you like a sister,
Chris

If they have any Baptist background they might also recognize the words from a hymn. I tell them that this is what the Crucifix is about :
"Lest I forget Gethsemane,

Lest I forget thine agony,

Lest I forget thy love for me,

remind me of Calvary."