Defending Catholicism at Work

[Gamera]

Here are some of the reason he gives that Catholicism is false.

1. Jesus is not God, he is the Son of God, but is not equal in power or personhood with God, neither is the Holy Spirit …

“Thomas cried out, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have believed because you have seen me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe,’” John 20:28-29.

Why would Jesus approve of Thomas calling him “God” if it were untrue?

 

[Gamera]

…Here are some of the reason he gives that Catholicism is false.

… 2. Sunday worship is pagan. He claims that God made the seventh day holy, which is Saturday, and to worship on Sunday is a pagan tradition. ( If anyone can point me to biblican evidence for sunday worship and tradition of sunday worship outside the bible I’d appreciate it.) …

Scripture shows that the earliest Christians gathered for worship on Sunday. “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread …,” Acts 20:7.

Here are some quotes from the earliest Christians showing their observance of Sunday worship.

“We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead,” Letter of Barnabas 15:6-8 (74 A.D.).

“But every Lord’s Day … gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.” Didache 14 (70 A.D.).

“…those who were brought up on the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death,” St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians 8 (110 A.D.).

As to why Sunday worship replaced the Jewish Sabbath, I like the way it is explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ,” CCC 2190. “… For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ…” CCC 2175.

Note that it is NOT correct to say the Catholic Church “moved the sabbath to Sunday.” That’s a common error. Sunday is not a celebration of the Jewish sabbath at all. It is the Lord’s Day, which REPLACES the Jewish sabbath.

 

[JamesN]

Hi, I am not Catholic yet, but I do consider Catholicism to be the true faith, and am on my way to entering the Church. Recently I began talking to a co-worker about Catholicism and was surprised how anti-catholic he was. Basically he considers Catholicism to be pagan because it is man made.

Here are some of the reason he gives that Catholicism is false.

1. Jesus is not God, he is the Son of God, but is not equal in power or personhood with God, neither is the Holy Spirit. Thus the Twelve Apostles have no authority to forgive sins, etc… He questions the whole Commision that Jesus gave to the apostles saying basically that Jesus showed them how to worship God and how to live better and not much more.
2. Sunday worship is pagan. He claims that God made the seventh day holy, which is Saturday, and to worship on Sunday is a pagan tradition. ( If anyone can point me to biblican evidence for sunday worship and tradition of sunday worship outside the bible I’d appreciate it.)
3. Early Christians were not Catholics, they did not worship on sunday, as stated above, they did not have apostalic succession, no confession of sins, no popes, no eucharist.
4. Mary is Not the Queen of Heaven and it is pagan to suggest anything of such sort.
5. Anything that is not in the Bible or has not been Directly ordered or revealed by God is not Christian. This go back to sunday worship, Mary, Saints and etc…

If anything could point out some Biblican passages or referrences to these arguments I’d greatly appreciate it. Also if you could recommend some non-biblican but historical sources it would help.

I’ve tried to explain to him why these things were valid, but he basically said that if thats not in the Bible its not Christian, which in a way is a whole another argument of Sola Scriptura. When I pointed out that Early Christians did these things he denied it so if anybody could give me some Church Father refferences or some historical material I’d appreciate it too.

I am currently Reading New Testament and The Boards to answear his arguments but it would help me find them quicker if some of you guys helped in this Thread…

Thanx in Advance.

Ghola,

Go to www.biblechristiansociety.com (taking your friend with you) and read John Martignoni’s rebuttals of just about all of these misplaced, ill-informed accusations. Especially, read through the newsletters (all 87 of 'em), where you will find many examples of such discussions between John and a number of detractors of the Catholic faith. There are also several audio files, freely downloadable, in which most of the points of contention between Catholics and non-Catholics are dealt with in lecture format. It’s an excellent site for anybody whose knowledge of the faith is patchy. I was in such a position not so long ago, and it helped me immensely.

 

[Ignatius]

1. Jesus is not God, he is the Son of God.

Well, if your friend believs that, he is not Christian. Christians believe that Jesus is God.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It is possible for one to be fired and lose their job by defending Catholicism at work.

It’s better to lose one’s job than to lose one’s soul.

 

[fellowChristian]

John 1
The Deity of Jesus Christ
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God​

The Word Made Flesh
14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

===============================================

Begotten not made. Jesus is God because the Father is God. Much like I am human because my father is human.You know a good question to ask also is “Why did the Jewish people crucify Jesus?” “What was their reason at that time?”

===============================================
**John 5:18

Jesus’ Equality with God**
18For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

JESUS CHRIST’S DIVINITY -
SOME OF MANY EXAMPLES
scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html#jesus-III

 

[DanteAlighieri]

He says he will only follow rules, traditions, doctrines, that are specifically shown in the Bible and nothing more.

So I think my best reply to him would be biblical evidence of Sunday Worship, Jesus’ Divinity, etc… I also want to be able to show him what the early Christians themselves believed and practiced. His argument is that Catholic Church that way we see it today did not exist prior to Constantine.

Privately, I think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, even though he says he thoroughly studied the bible and history. I easily refuted many of his arguments, for example even the jews had to go to the Temple to offer the Sin Offering as atonement for sins and a Jewish Priest had to be there to see it and accept it and acknowledge it. (Not sure if I’m exactly right on this) Thus Catholics are following in a similar tradition by going to Church and Confessing to a Priest, not exclusively appealing to God for forgiveness.

I think you’re right about one thing: he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The fact that he claims sola scriptura as his guiding principle and yet believes that Jesus is not God is absurd. That he believes Jesus was teaching us how to “enjoy life without technicalities” and that he was “encouraged to seek his own truth” suggests that your friend has created his own religion designed to validate a lazy, relativist worldview.

You’re not going to make any inroads with this fellow unless you can get past his misunderstanding of Scripture, I would reckon. Start with the divinity of Christ.

See these articles:

catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Christ.asp

catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.asp

Peace,
Dante

 

[panfila2000]

There was an earlier excellent link provided but I’d like you to ask your friend, who is the “woman” crowned with twelve stars in Rev. 12:1

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VII

here’s the answer to your comments on who is the “woman” crowned with twelve stars in Rev. 12:1.

Answer: In Revelation chapter 12, the woman is described as “clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Revelation 12:1). Note the similarity between this description and the description that Joseph gave of his father Jacob (Israel) and his mother and their children (Genesis 37:9-11). The stars refer to the twelve tribes of Israel. So the woman in Revelation 12 is Israel.

Additional evidence is that in Revelation 12:2-5, the passage speaks of the woman being with child and giving birth. While it is true that Mary gave birth to Jesus, it is also true that Jesus, the son of David from the tribe of Judah, came from Israel. In a real sense, Israel gave birth—or brought forth—Christ Jesus. Further evidence for this is in 12:5 where the Scripture says that the woman “gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.” Clearly, this is describing Jesus. Jesus will one day establish His kingdom on earth (Revelation 20:4-6), and He will rule it. This verse also makes reference to Jesus’ ascension to heaven 40 days after His resurrection (Acts 1:9-11), speaking of the son “being caught up to God and to His throne.”

When it speaks of the woman fleeing into the wilderness for 1,260 days, it is referring to the future time called the tribulation period. Twelve hundred sixty days is 42 months of 30 days each. 42 months is 3 1/2 years. Halfway through the tribulation period, the beast will set an image of himself up in the temple that will be built in Jerusalem. This is the abomination that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. When the beast does this, he breaks the peace pact he made with Israel, and the nation has to flee for safety (also see Matthew 24; Daniel 9:27). This is the picture of the woman fleeing into the wilderness.

Revelation 12:12-17 speaks of how the devil will make war against Israel, trying to destroy her (Satan knows his time is short, relatively speaking—see Revelation 20:1-3, 10). It also speaks of how God will protect Israel while in the wilderness. This wilderness place where Israel will flee is believed to be a place called Petra. Note Revelation 12:14 where it says that Israel will be protected from the devil for "a time, times, and half a time (a time = 1 year – 3 1/2 years).

 

[panfila2000]

As a quick tip, the Catholic Answers library contains a lot of quotes from the early Christians on their teachings. They start at around 80 AD, a time in which at least one of the Apostles was still alive. For instance, here’s the Church fathers on Mary as the Mother of God. catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

The earliest Christians DID have the Eucharist, and popes, and Apostolic succession, and everything we Catholic have today. Best of luck with co-worker. Don’t let him attack you from all sides like he seems to be - inform yourself on a subject and then stick to it, don’t let him start spouting off “Well you Catholics do this and this and this and this!”. Instead, be charitable and just let him know that the first subject was unfinished, that you’re more than willing to discuss the other objections, but only after you’re done.

"What does the Bible say about the virgin Mary?"

**Answer: **Mary the mother of Jesus was described by God as “highly favored” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “highly favored” comes from a single Greek word, which essentially means “much grace.” Mary received God’s grace.

Grace is “unmerited favor,” meaning that something we receive despite the fact that we do not deserve it. Mary needed grace from God just as the rest of us do. Mary herself understood this fact, as she declared in Luke 1:47, “. . . and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. . .”

Mary recognized that she needed the Savior. The Bible never says that Mary was anyone but an ordinary human whom God chose to use in an extraordinary way. Yes, Mary was a righteous woman and favored (graced) by God (Luke 1:27-28). At the same time, Mary was a sinful human being who needed Jesus Christ as her Savior, just like everyone else (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 6:23; 1 John 1:8).

Mary did not have an “immaculate conception.” The Bible doesn’t suggest Mary’s birth was anything but a normal human birth. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus (Luke 1:34-38), but the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is unbiblical. Matthew 1:25, speaking of Joseph, declares, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.”

The word “until” clearly indicates that Joseph and Mary did have sexual union after Jesus was born. Joseph and Mary had several children together after Jesus was born. Jesus had four half-brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Jesus also had half-sisters, although they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:55-56). God blessed and graced Mary by giving her several children, which in that culture was the clearest indication of God’s blessing on a woman.

One time when Jesus was speaking, a woman in the crowd proclaimed, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed” (Luke 11:27). There was never a better opportunity for Jesus to declare that Mary was indeed worthy of praise and adoration. What was Jesus’ response? “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (Luke 11:28). To Jesus, obedience to God’s Word was more important than being the woman who gave birth to the Savior.

Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus, or anyone else, direct any praise, glory, or adoration towards Mary. Elizabeth, Mary’s relative, praised Mary in Luke 1:42-44, but her praise is based on the blessing of giving birth to the Messiah. It was not based on any inherent glory in Mary.

Mary was present at the cross when Jesus died (John 19:25). Mary was also with the apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14). However, Mary is never mentioned again after Acts chapter 1. The apostles did not give Mary a prominent role. Mary’s death is not recorded in the Bible. Nothing is said about Mary ascending to heaven or having an exalted role there. As the earthly mother of Jesus, Mary should be respected, but she is not worthy of our worship or adoration.

The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary can hear our prayers or that she can mediate for us with God. Jesus is our only advocate and mediator in heaven (1 Timothy 2:5). If offered worship, adoration, or prayers, Mary would say the same as the angels: “Worship God!” (See Revelation 19:10; 22:9.) Mary herself sets the example for us, directing her worship, adoration, and praise to God alone: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is His name” (Luke 1:46-49).

 

[panfila2000]

As a quick tip, the Catholic Answers library contains a lot of quotes from the early Christians on their teachings. They start at around 80 AD, a time in which at least one of the Apostles was still alive. For instance, here’s the Church fathers on Mary as the Mother of God. catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

The earliest Christians DID have the Eucharist, and popes, and Apostolic succession, and everything we Catholic have today. Best of luck with co-worker. Don’t let him attack you from all sides like he seems to be - inform yourself on a subject and then stick to it, don’t let him start spouting off “Well you Catholics do this and this and this and this!”. Instead, be charitable and just let him know that the first subject was unfinished, that you’re more than willing to discuss the other objections, but only after you’re done.

In regards to your comments about Eucharist (2 parts)

part 1:

“What is the sacrament of Holy Eucharist?”

he Holy Eucharist / Catholic Mass is considered the most important and highest form of prayer. In fact, attending Mass is an obligation, under penalty of mortal sin, each Sunday and on certain other Holy Days of Obligation. The Mass is divided into two sections, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word consists of two readings (one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament), the Responsorial Psalm, the Gospel reading, the homily (or sermon), and general intercessions (also called petitions).

The center of the Mass is its second part, the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. During this time, Catholics share in the body and blood of Jesus in the form of the bread and wine passed out to the congregation. According to the Bible, this is done in remembrance of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25, cf. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28). However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.” The Catechism continues in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

In the book of Malachi, the prophet predicts elimination of the old sacrificial system and the institution of a new sacrifice: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:10-11). This means that God will one day be glorified among the Gentiles, who will make pure offerings to Him in all places. The Catholics see this as the Eucharist. However, the apostle Paul seems to have a different slant on it: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1). The Eucharist can only be offered in select places: Churches consecrated and blessed according to Catholic Canon Law. The idea of offering our bodies as living sacrifices fits better with the language of the prediction, which says that the sacrifices will be offered “in every place.”

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In 1551 A.D., the Counsel of Trent officially stated: “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63-64). So, if “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are “spirit.” Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

 

[panfila2000]

As a quick tip, the Catholic Answers library contains a lot of quotes from the early Christians on their teachings. They start at around 80 AD, a time in which at least one of the Apostles was still alive. For instance, here’s the Church fathers on Mary as the Mother of God. catholic.com/library/Mary_Mother_of_God.asp

The earliest Christians DID have the Eucharist, and popes, and Apostolic succession, and everything we Catholic have today. Best of luck with co-worker. Don’t let him attack you from all sides like he seems to be - inform yourself on a subject and then stick to it, don’t let him start spouting off “Well you Catholics do this and this and this and this!”. Instead, be charitable and just let him know that the first subject was unfinished, that you’re more than willing to discuss the other objections, but only after you’re done.

Part 2:

In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and “eating of it” was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states “‘He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.’ All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob” (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point.

In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51), and the entire Mosaic system of Law. In the passage from Sirach, it states that those who eat of the Law will “hunger still” and “thirst for more,” the language of which is mirrored by Jesus when He says “He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself (“The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent,” John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.

Secondly, there is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged his followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord’s Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a “re-sacrifice” of Christ, or a “re-offering” of Christ’s sacrifice - both concepts are unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, “Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself.” Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, “For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God…” Christ’s once for all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ’s sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

 

[panfila2000]

Bless you for coming home to the Church, Ghola! You are wise to realize that this co-worker of yours is extremely mistaken. Every one of his points is very easy to refute. Perhaps intimidating for someone who hasn’t studied them all.

I will give you one regarding the above that is less-well-known. First, the risen Christ celebrates the Eucharist Luke 24:30-31 (that was on a Sunday as verse 1 says).

Secondly, the first Christians most certainly worshipped on Sunday. See here. There’s a timeline there below the graphic starting at 90 A.D. when the apostle John was most likely still around and some say wrote Revelation at this time.

In regards to the risen Christ celebrates the Eucharist (PART 1)

“What is the sacrament of Holy Eucharist?”

The Holy Eucharist / Catholic Mass is considered the most important and highest form of prayer. In fact, attending Mass is an obligation, under penalty of mortal sin, each Sunday and on certain other Holy Days of Obligation. The Mass is divided into two sections, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word consists of two readings (one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament), the Responsorial Psalm, the Gospel reading, the homily (or sermon), and general intercessions (also called petitions).

The center of the Mass is its second part, the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist. During this time, Catholics share in the body and blood of Jesus in the form of the bread and wine passed out to the congregation. According to the Bible, this is done in remembrance of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:23-25, cf. Luke 22:18-20 and Matthew 26:26-28). However, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, “The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.” The Catechism continues in paragraph 1367:

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”

In the book of Malachi, the prophet predicts elimination of the old sacrificial system and the institution of a new sacrifice: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:10-11). This means that God will one day be glorified among the Gentiles, who will make pure offerings to Him in all places. The Catholics see this as the Eucharist. However, the apostle Paul seems to have a different slant on it: “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1). The Eucharist can only be offered in select places: Churches consecrated and blessed according to Catholic Canon Law. The idea of offering our bodies as living sacrifices fits better with the language of the prediction, which says that the sacrifices will be offered “in every place.”

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist become the actual body and blood of Jesus. They attempt to support their system of thought with passages such as John 6:32-58; Matthew 26:26; Luke 22:17-23; and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. In 1551 A.D., the Counsel of Trent officially stated: “by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Session XIII, chapter IV; cf. canon II). By sharing in the Eucharistic meal, the Church teaches that Catholics are fulfilling John 6:53: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

What does that really mean? Jesus goes on to say that “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63-64). So, if “the flesh is of no avail,” why would we have to eat Jesus’ flesh in order to have eternal life? It does not make sense, until Jesus tells us that the words He speaks are “spirit.” Jesus is saying that this is not a literal teaching, but a spiritual one. The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

 

[panfila2000]

Bless you for coming home to the Church, Ghola! You are wise to realize that this co-worker of yours is extremely mistaken. Every one of his points is very easy to refute. Perhaps intimidating for someone who hasn’t studied them all.

I will give you one regarding the above that is less-well-known. First, the risen Christ celebrates the Eucharist Luke 24:30-31 (that was on a Sunday as verse 1 says).

Secondly, the first Christians most certainly worshipped on Sunday. See here. There’s a timeline there below the graphic starting at 90 A.D. when the apostle John was most likely still around and some say wrote Revelation at this time.

PART 2:

In Jewish thought, bread was equated with the Torah, and “eating of it” was reading and understanding the covenant of God (cf. Deuteronomy 8:3). For example, the apocryphal book of Sirach states “‘He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; he who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.’ All this is true of the book of Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob” (Sirach 24:20-22). Quoting from Sirach here is not endorsing it as Scripture; it only serves to illustrate how the Jewish people thought of Mosaic Law. It is important to understand the equating of bread with the Torah to appreciate Jesus’ real point.

In John 6, Jesus is actually telling the crowd that He is superior to the Torah (cf. John 6:49-51), and the entire Mosaic system of Law. In the passage from Sirach, it states that those who eat of the Law will “hunger still” and “thirst for more,” the language of which is mirrored by Jesus when He says “He who comes to Me will never be hungry, he who believes in Me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35). Jesus is not commanding people to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, He is telling them the core of all Christian doctrine: belief in Jesus Himself (“The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent,” John 6:29, emphasis added). Therefore, the Catholic interpretation of John 6 is unbiblical.

Secondly, there is a very clear analogy in John 6 to the days of Moses and the eating of manna. In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation. Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.

It is very clear that Jesus referred to Himself as the Bread of Life and encouraged his followers to eat of His flesh in John 6. But we do not need to conclude that Jesus was teaching what the Catholics have referred to as transubstantiation. The Lord’s Supper / Christian communion / Holy Eucharist had not been instituted yet. Jesus did not institute the Holy Eucharist / Mass / Lord’s Supper until John chapter 13. Therefore, to read the Lord’s Supper into John 6 is unwarranted. As suggested above, it is best to understand this passage in light of coming to Jesus, in faith, for salvation. When we receive Him as Savior, placing our full trust in Him, we are “consuming His flesh” and “drinking His blood.” His body was broken (at His death) and His blood was shed to provide for our salvation. 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

Whether the Catholic definition of Holy Eucharist is a “re-sacrifice” of Christ, or a “re-offering” of Christ’s sacrifice - both concepts are unbiblical. Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed. Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Hebrews 7:27 declares, “Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself.” Similarly, 1 Peter 3:18 exclaims, “For Christ died for sins ONCE for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God…” Christ’s once for all death on the cross was sufficient to atone for all of our sins (1 John 2:2). Therefore, Christ’s sacrifice does not need to be re-offered. Instead, Christ’s sacrifice is to be received by faith (John 1:12; 3:16). Eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully receiving His sacrifice on our behalf, by grace through faith.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Ghola5,

 May I recommend a good Catholic audio website, where you can download (for free, of course) great Catholic talks on many subjects that will help you with these things?   

 [alabamacatholicresources.com](http://www.alabamacatholicresources.com)

  You might want to start with Church History, [alabamacatholicresources.com/church_history.html](http://www.alabamacatholicresources.com/church_history.html)

God bless!

Scooby

 

[panfila2000]

You might want to start with Church History, alabamacatholicresources.com/church_history.html

God bless!

Scooby

“What is the origin of the Catholic Church?” PART I

The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately 30 A.D. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ died for, the Church that was established and built by the Apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse – not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

 

[panfila2000]

You might want to start with Church History, alabamacatholicresources.com/church_history.html

God bless!

Scooby

PART II

(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in concept of the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass / Eucharist, complete.

(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.

Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”