Tradition can be misleading? So can the Bible.

[juliamajor]

I agree with this. Scripture never changes and the Bible has been around for 2,000 years. Traditions do change and their meanings or purposes change ever so slowly, but over the centuries the meanings change adversely. If you put a frog in hot water, he will jump out immediately. If you put him in warm water and heat it ever so slowly, he will be boiled to death eventually.

Actually scripture has changed over the years- did you know woman caught in adultery was not in the earliest manuscripts-?THERE are no originals to make a comparison with.If we did not have an original of the Declaration of Independence how would you know which copy of it was closest to the originals? I hate to tell you but tradition is the only way we would know what copy was spurious and which was or is the closest to the original. Scripture ,inspired by God, but put on fallible media written by fallible people-then transmitted over thousands of years by thousands of different hands- what do you think is going to happen?Lacunae form- they are filled in- by whom?They only way possible to make any sense of scripture over the centuries is the Church East and West and her tradition of attempting to stay as close to the original meaning as possible.God uses his creatures to transmit His glory not parchment.

 

[paarsurrey]

Actually scripture has changed over the years- did you know woman caught in adultery was not in the earliest manuscripts-?THERE are no originals to make a comparison with.If we did not have an original of the Declaration of Independence how would you know which copy of it was closest to the originals? I hate to tell you but tradition is the only way we would know what copy was spurious and which was or is the closest to the original. Scripture ,inspired by God, but put on fallible media written by fallible people-then transmitted over thousands of years by thousands of different hands- what do you think is going to happen?

Hi

Your words are rational and food for thought; these weaknesses have split the Christianity apart into 32000 plus denominations. There is little attempt for reunifications, I think they are confused and disappointed. They are as I understand waiting for Jesus’ Second Coming to clear this mess for them, whereas they were supposed to do this homework before his descent. Isn’t it true?

Who knows the PromisedMessiah has already come? and they have not recongzised him; nobody has his finger prints to match them.
Has somebody got them or he would be tested a DNA testing!

Please don’t min, no disrespect is intended to anybody’s faith.

Thanks

 

[qui_est_ce]

Hi

Your words are rational and food for thought; these weaknesses have split the Christianity apart into 32000 plus denominations. There is little attempt for reunifications, I think they are confused and disappointed. They are as I understand waiting for Jesus’ Second Coming to clear this mess for them, whereas they were supposed to do this homework before his descent. Isn’t it true?

Who knows the PromisedMessiah has already come? and they have not recongzised him; nobody has his finger prints to match them.
Has somebody got them or he would be tested a DNA testing!

Please don’t min, no disrespect is intended to anybody’s faith.

Thanks

Actually, there has been blood typing:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#The_miracle_of_Lanciano

In the city of Lanciano, Italy, around A.D. 700, a Basilian monk and priest was assigned to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice in the Latin Rite in the small Church of St.Legontian. Usually celebrating in the Greek Rite and using leavened bread and having been taught that unleavened bread was invalid matter for the Holy Sacrifice he was disturbed to be constrained to use unleavened bread and had trouble believing that the miracle of transubtantiation would take place with unleavened bread. During the Mass, when he said the words of consecration (This is my Body…This is my Blood), he saw the bread change into live flesh and the wine change into live blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size. He was frightened and confused by the miracle, and stood a while as if in divine ecstasy, but eventually he turned his face to the congregation, and said “Behold the Flesh and the blood of our Most Beloved Christ.” At those words, the congregation members ran to the altar and began to cry for mercy. This miracle proved to him that unleavened bread was acceptable matter for the Holy Sacrifice.

In 1970-71, Professor Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy, and Professor Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena, conducted a scientific investigation into the miracle. The report was published in Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori in 1971, and reaffirmed by a scientific commission appointed by the Higher Council of the World Health Organization in 1973.[1] The following conclusions were drawn:[2]
The Flesh of the miracle is real Flesh and the Blood is real Blood.
The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart, which would be impossible to obtain through dissection.[dubious – discuss]
In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium. The Flesh is a heart complete in its essential structure.
**The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood type, AB, which is also the same blood type found on the Shroud of Turin and all other Eucharistic Miracles. **
In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
There is no trace whatsoever of any materials or agents used to preserve the Flesh or Blood.
The Flesh and Blood of the miracle can still be seen today. The Host-Flesh, which is the same size as the large Host used today in the Latin Church, is fibrous and light brown in colour, and becomes rose-coloured when lighted from the back. The Blood consists of five coagulated globules and has an earthly colour resembling the yellow of ochre.

 

[flyersfan1088]

?? I guess I don’t agree. Divorce is even in the apocrypha. Sirach 25:26 says to divorce your wife if she doesn’t obey you. I read from the NIV which does not contain the apocrypha. I have never read anything in Scripture that would suggest not using contraception.

Jesus said that divoce was allowed in the Mosaic Law due to the hardness of mens hearts, but it wasn’t so in the beginning. According to the Bible, unchastity is the only reason for divorce. There is NO permission given to remarry after divorce, however. It is adultery.

 

[alanjeddy]

Yes, cults like JWs and the Mormons have twisted Scripture to the point that a pretzel would look straight in comparison.

But in the RCC the problem with tradition is defined in one fundamental question: Who judges the judges?

In the RCC, tradition can be infallibly defined by the magisterium based on revelation passed down in unwritten form by-what else-tradition. Tradition uses tradition to validate itself.

Tradition is whatever the church says it is. No one can examine or refute it based on an outside objective source. So if you can’t use the Scriptures to judge what it is that the church is doing because the church has elevated tradition to the same level as the Holy Scriptures (which was breathed by God) then how do you know that the church is what she claims herself to be?

If the sole ability to interpret Scripture is entrusted to the Magisterium alone then they’ve effectively even taken out the ability for the common person to judge the teachings of the church by the Bible.

So, the church determines tradition which also determines how the Bible, the only objective source to judge tradition, is to be interpreted, based on tradition. In this you have a great set-up for abuses of power and authority.

Are we to submit to the authority of the RCC simply because the Vatican tells us to? Absolutely not!

As I’ve said before, with the Holy Spirit as our teacher, each true believe a holy priesthood and saint, and the Holy Scriptures as our text we CAN know the truth.

I’ll say it again. If Paul the apostle who was called, commissioned and taught by Jesus Christ Himself was not threatened or upset when the Bereans double-checked everything they were taught by Paul against Scripture…why should the church?

Dr. Scott Hahn, a brilliant Protestant theologian, remembers the time during one of his theology classes, when one of his students stood upand asked him: “Show me where in the bible that it says that scripture alone is sufficient?” He could not answer the student. This was one of the important realizations that precipitated Hahn’s conversion to the Catholic church.

The passage most commonly brought up by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. In the King James Version, the verse reads this way: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”

Many claim that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claims scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims scripture is “profitable” (Greek: ophelimos) that is helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is “sufficient”- which isssss, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means.

The context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings- the traditions-that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in1:13-14, “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (RSV).

 

[alanjeddy]

Actually, there has been blood typing:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#The_miracle_of_Lanciano

In the city of Lanciano, Italy, around A.D. 700, a Basilian monk and priest was assigned to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice in the Latin Rite in the small Church of St.Legontian. Usually celebrating in the Greek Rite and using leavened bread and having been taught that unleavened bread was invalid matter for the Holy Sacrifice he was disturbed to be constrained to use unleavened bread and had trouble believing that the miracle of transubtantiation would take place with unleavened bread. During the Mass, when he said the words of consecration (This is my Body…This is my Blood), he saw the bread change into live flesh and the wine change into live blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size. He was frightened and confused by the miracle, and stood a while as if in divine ecstasy, but eventually he turned his face to the congregation, and said “Behold the Flesh and the blood of our Most Beloved Christ.” At those words, the congregation members ran to the altar and began to cry for mercy. This miracle proved to him that unleavened bread was acceptable matter for the Holy Sacrifice.

In 1970-71, Professor Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy, and Professor Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena, conducted a scientific investigation into the miracle. The report was published in Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori in 1971, and reaffirmed by a scientific commission appointed by the Higher Council of the World Health Organization in 1973.[1] The following conclusions were drawn:[2]
The Flesh of the miracle is real Flesh and the Blood is real Blood.
The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.
The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart, which would be impossible to obtain through dissection.[dubious – discuss]
In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium. The Flesh is a heart complete in its essential structure.
**The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood type, AB, which is also the same blood type found on the Shroud of Turin and all other Eucharistic Miracles. **
In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.
In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.
There is no trace whatsoever of any materials or agents used to preserve the Flesh or Blood.
The Flesh and Blood of the miracle can still be seen today. The Host-Flesh, which is the same size as the large Host used today in the Latin Church, is fibrous and light brown in colour, and becomes rose-coloured when lighted from the back. The Blood consists of five coagulated globules and has an earthly colour resembling the yellow of ochre.

Amen I say to you and there are so many other Eucharistic miracles and how about Alexandrina who lived only on the Eucharist for 13 years. No other food or water.
Beati qui ad cenam agni vocati sunt

 

[alanjeddy]

Hi

Your words are rational and food for thought; these weaknesses have split the Christianity apart into 32000 plus denominations. There is little attempt for reunifications, I think they are confused and disappointed. They are as I understand waiting for Jesus’ Second Coming to clear this mess for them, whereas they were supposed to do this homework before his descent. Isn’t it true?

Who knows the PromisedMessiah has already come? and they have not recongzised him; nobody has his finger prints to match them.
Has somebody got them or he would be tested a DNA testing!

Please don’t min, no disrespect is intended to anybody’s faith/QUOTE

What has split apart are the 3000 plus Protestant faiths that can’t agree on anything, even Biblical interpretation. No wonder there is no biblical reference for Sola Scriptura. Disunity everywhere and the devil is laughing.

One Catholic and apostolic church. You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the powers of evil will not prevail upon her.

 

[justasking4]

Read ECF, Ignatius of Antioch, Iranaeus. These all existed before the finalized version of OT and NT.

*St. Ignatius of Antioch
Also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.

It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John*. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of AntiochSt. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves (“Hom. in St. Ig.”, IV. 587).

To decide this question one has only to examine the oldest Liturgies of the Mass, whose essential elements date back to the time of the Apostles (see articles on the various liturgies), to visit the Roman Catacombs, where Christ is shown as present in the Eucharistic food under the symbol of a fish (see EARLY SYMBOLS OF THE EUCHARIST), to decipher the famous Inscription of Abercius of the second century, which, though composed under the influence of the Discipline of the Secret, plainly attests the faith of that age. And thus the argument from prescription carries us back to the dim and distant past and thence to the time of the Apostles, who in turn could have received their faith in the Real Presence from no one but Christ Himself.

newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

*On the Eucharist, Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

“ Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 ” *

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

There is no list, Sacred Tradidition is ALL of what early Christians practiced. It would be impossible to cite them all here, which is why I provided links. Please read them.

Couple of things here. Who is to say these fathers speak for the entire church?

What do you do if they contradict one another?

How do you know what is a Sacred Tradition? What is the criteria for it?

 

[alanjeddy]

Yes, cults like JWs and the Mormons have twisted Scripture to the point that a pretzel would look straight in comparison.

But in the RCC the problem with tradition is defined in one fundamental question: Who judges the judges?

In the RCC, tradition can be infallibly defined by the magisterium based on revelation passed down in unwritten form by-what else-tradition. Tradition uses tradition to validate itself.

Tradition is whatever the church says it is. No one can examine or refute it based on an outside objective source. So if you can’t use the Scriptures to judge what it is that the church is doing because the church has elevated tradition to the same level as the Holy Scriptures (which was breathed by God) then how do you know that the church is what she claims herself to be?

If the sole ability to interpret Scripture is entrusted to the Magisterium alone then they’ve effectively even taken out the ability for the common person to judge the teachings of the church by the Bible.

So, the church determines tradition which also determines how the Bible, the only objective source to judge tradition, is to be interpreted, based on tradition. In this you have a great set-up for abuses of power and authority.

Are we to submit to the authority of the RCC simply because the Vatican tells us to? Absolutely not!

As I’ve said before, with the Holy Spirit as our teacher, each true believe a holy priesthood and saint, and the Holy Scriptures as our text we CAN know the truth.

I’ll say it again. If Paul the apostle who was called, commissioned and taught by Jesus Christ Himself was not threatened or upset when the Bereans double-checked everything they were taught by Paul against Scripture…why should the church?

There is no biblical reference for Sola Scriptura. Besides Protestants can’t agree on anything. When they come to a disagreement in interpreting scripture they leave there church and start a new one. Why do you think there are over 33,000 protestant faiths. Disunity abounds everywhere. the devil is smiling.

There is one Catholic and apostolic faith that has survived for over 2000 years. Sacred Scriptur, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterial interpretation each one guided by the Holy Spirit. One holy Catholic church. Thousands of splintered Protestant faiths. God love our Protestant brothers and sisters for they all love their sacred scriptures and Jesus Christ.

I would say to them there are not 100 people who would hate our church if they truly understood our faith.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum!

 

[justasking4]

alanjeddy;3088743]There is no biblical reference for Sola Scriptura.

What is your definition of Sola Scriptura?

When Jesus was being tempted by Satan in the wilderness did He use Tradition or Scripture to counter satan?

Besides Protestants can’t agree on anything. When they come to a disagreement in interpreting scripture they leave there church and start a new one. Why do you think there are over 33,000 protestant faiths. Disunity abounds everywhere. the devil is smiling.

Actually this is not completely true. Many churches split so that they can start churches elsewhere.

There is one Catholic and apostolic faith that has survived for over 2000 years. Sacred Scriptur, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterial interpretation each one guided by the Holy Spirit. One holy Catholic church. Thousands of splintered Protestant faiths. God love our Protestant brothers and sisters for they all love their sacred scriptures and Jesus Christ.

The catholic church is no more unified than protestant churches.

I would say to them there are not 100 people who would hate our church if they truly understood our faith.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum!

 

[alanjeddy]

What is your definition of Sola Scriptura?

When Jesus was being tempted by Satan in the wilderness did He use Tradition or Scripture to counter satan?

Actually this is not completely true. Many churches split so that they can start churches elsewhere.

The catholic church is no more unified than protestant churches.

Hello mc Fly anybody home? One Holy , Apostolic church. Thousands of Protestant faiths ( Please don’t insult my intelligence by saying some of this was a question of logistics. And you say the Catholic church is just as ununified. This is getting really funny.

 

[justasking4]

Hello mc Fly anybody home? One Holy , Apostolic church. Thousands of Protestant faiths ( Please don’t insult my intelligence by saying some of this was a question of logistics. And you say the Catholic church is just as ununified. This is getting really funny.

Tell me then what are the “Traditions” that all catholics have believed for the past 2000 years?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Tell me then what are the “Traditions” that all catholics have believed for the past 2000 years?

I gave you some links. Tradition is what the early Christians practiced, mass, Real Presence, Trinity, worshipping on Sunday. Please read the ECF. I cannot copy and paste books here.

 

[alanjeddy]

I gave you some links. Tradition is what the early Christians practiced, mass, Real Presence, Trinity, worshipping on Sunday. Please read the ECF. I cannot copy and paste books here.

I don’t think the Real Presence is tradition, it is scriptual. In John 6 Jesus is speaking of His real presence for his Jewish audience was scandalised and they left Him. Jesus even asked His own apostles, “Are you going to leave me too?” If He were speaking metaphorically of a symbolic presence He would have told them and they never would have left. Jesus knew what He meant and said what He meant. Also if we go back to the ancient Greek the word torgo means to eat or gnaw on flesh. That is one of the beliefs that Luther brought into the Lutheran church. Per capita I have heard that there is a higher percentage of Lutherans who believe in the real presence than us Catholics.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t think the Real Presence is tradition, it is scriptual. I have heard that there is a higher percentage of Lutherans who believe in the real presence than us Catholics.

Scripture is Tradition, silly.

I have heard that there is a higher percentage of Lutherans who believe in the real presence than us Catholics.

I have heard of a poll taken of Catholics leaving mass, only 60% believed or had heard of the Real Presence. When my son was making his First Holy Communion, we had to take a class, and several of the mothers said they didn’t know the Eucharist was the Real Presence. HELLOOOOO Where have you been?? For many Catholics, they are baptized, and therefore “counted.” But they don’t do anything to learn or practice their faith. For most protestants, they have to willfully join, so there would probably be a higher percentage of practicing believers.

 

[alanjeddy]

Scripture is Tradition, silly.
I have heard of a poll taken of Catholics leaving mass, only 60% believed or had heard of the Real Presence. When my son was making his First Holy Communion, we had to take a class, and several of the mothers said they didn’t know the Eucharist was the Real Presence. HELLOOOOO Where have you been?? For many Catholics, they are baptized, and therefore “counted.” But they don’t do anything to learn or practice their faith. For most protestants, they have to willfully join, so there would probably be a higher percentage of practicing believers.

The Sacred Deposit of Faith consists solely in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Therefore Sacred Tradition is everything other than Sacred Scripture. (The Second Vatican Council’s document on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum)

Faith, as expressed in the bible of itself, is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authrity of the Catholic Church to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret scripture correctly.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The Sacred Deposit of Faith consists solely in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Therefore Sacred Tradition is everything other than Sacred Scripture. (The Second Vatican Council’s document on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum)

Faith, as expressed in the bible of itself, is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authrity of the Catholic Church to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret scripture correctly.

This may just be semantics, but I read Sacred Tradition as the Fullness from which Scripture flows. CCC

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

 

[alanjeddy]

This may just be semantics, but I read Sacred Tradition as the Fullness from which Scripture flows. CCC

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

Sacred Scripture is the Holy Bible. You can point to it.You can hold it in your hand. It consists of words that you can read and write down. But Sacred Tradition is much harder to understand. You cannot point to it. You cannot hold it in your hand. It is unspoken and unwritten. Consequently many persons have mistaken ideas about sacred tradition. The true definition of Sacred Tradition is poorly understood by both the faithful and the clergy on earth today. Sacred Tradition is unwritten truths

However when we view the above truths in light of what is said in paragraph one of Dei Verbum it seems paradoxical to me. The Second Vatican Council teaches: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, commited to the Church.” (Dei Verbum10)

Tradition and Scripture are like a song with both music and words. they are in perfect harmony together and together they express the same thing. The music can be discussed in words, but it can never actually be put into words without ceasing to to be music. Just so, Tradition is the truths of Goddd that cannot be put into words without ceasing to be to be Sacred , Infallible Tradition. Can we say then that the truths of Sacred Tradition are then ineffable in the sense of a mystic who can experience a deeper connection of his soul with God. Yet the mystery of this deeper communion with God can not be expressed in words?

I guess as Father Corapi says God’s ways are so far above our ways as the heavens are above the earth.

 

[justasking4]

I gave you some links. Tradition is what the early Christians practiced, mass, Real Presence, Trinity, worshipping on Sunday. Please read the ECF. I cannot copy and paste books here.

What you don’t see in scripture is the celebration of the mass. We don’t see a priest etc doing all that is involved. What is amazing that something that is so central to the catholic church is not shown in scripture.

 

[qui_est_ce]

What you don’t see in scripture is the celebration of the mass. We don’t see a priest etc doing all that is involved. What is amazing that something that is so central to the catholic church is not shown in scripture.

Scripture (as we know it today) was compiled by the Catholic Church, specifically Pope St Damasus I newadvent.org/cathen/04613a.htm who requested St Jerome, newadvent.org/cathen/08341a.htm his secretary to translate from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic into Latin, the comon language (vulgate) beginning approx 382. Before this time, many writings, including Eusebius, etc. newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm were available. Which were inspired? This was decided at several Councils Hippo, etc 390, 393,

Sacred Tradition shows us the earliest Christians “broke bread” as Jesus instructed them to do. Read the following for how the mass was celebrated by the Apostles and their followers:

newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

MATTHEW 26:26-28

26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

I would have liked to post all this information but for posting limits, I have supplied links. Although these links are from Catholic sources (because they were easier to find), you will find them substantiated by Wikipedia.

In the end, it is faith, Do you believe the words Jesus spoke? Who preserved all this literature without error during the times of the Barbarian attacks?

When all was well, and freedom of ideas were abounding safe from persecution, some felt free to spring forth with new interpretations, beginning with ML, who sadly was followed by Zwingli and Calvin. All heretical to the Church Jesus promised to protect from the gates of Hell.

True Catholicism is marked by understanding and learning not blind faith,.