What Is Your Authority?

[Protestant101]

Hello Protestant101,

Catholics do not need to have the Bible “actually say” something before we hold it to be true. We don’t claim the necessity of a Biblical verse that specifically states a doctrine in order for that doctrine to be accepted as true. THAT IS A PROTESTANT POSITION, not a Catholic one,
Thank you,
Nita

Oh; I already knew this; I am just trying to explore the specific points made in the article which I linked to in the first post of this thread.

All I am asking for is a detailed explanation of something in the Bible that is actually not “complete” or “sufficient.” Catholics say that the Bible is not “sufficient.” Well; not sufficient for what? Can you name something in the Bible which would come up so short, that it needs to be trumped by something in the apocrypha? (since you say that the apocrypha is also “the word of God” you should be able to easily point out examples).

 

[Protestant101]

What makes the Bible insufficient? Why it’s you and me, man!!!

I’ve asked this and you’ve glossed over it, but it proves my point.

I find it highly ironic that the Church that depends strictly on the Bible can vacillate on the sinfulness of Contraception, when the Bible has not changed. While at the same time, the Church that believes that the Bible is a part of the whole on authority (It shares authority with Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium) has remained consistent on this and other doctrines that have changed among the Bible-only churches.

This, P101, is my point. Fallible humans insist on going to the Bible and reading their own interpretations out of it. You claim that this is people working against the Will of God. But to the “searching” Christian, how are they to know which church is following God’s Will and which one is interfering.

We all know that humans are fallible; however. I am asking you to show us where the Bible is fallible? You say that it is “not sufficient” yet you can’t say what in it actually is insufficient. I want to discuss the points in the article which I linked to in the first post of this thread; and I am trying to address each point in the article, one by one as they ocurr in the article. Please go back and look over the article and the first post, and then get back on track with the topic, and i will be happy to continue discussing with you.

 

[Petergee]

Actually; I did not say any of these things in my posts.

Can you name one of those points with with which you disagree?

I am just asking Catholics to please be specific, tell me exactly what in the Bible is NOT sufficient for “salvation;”

Everything in the Bible is not sufficient for salvation.

and what, from the apocryphs needs to be added to it, in order for it to be “complete” enough for salvation? What Bible verse or doctrine, needs somthing from the apocrypha, in order for it to be “complete” or “sufficient?” And what specific passage from the apocrypha would be needed in this case?

I will not address anything here which does not address the topic at hand.

Then stop rattling on about irrelevancies like the so-called “apocrypha” to try and cast a fog over the fact that your argument has no ratiional basis. .

 

[YADA]

Protestant101,

You are being somewhat dishonest in your appeals…in fact the poster who pressed the question of what constitutes the books of the bible that you state is solely sufficient did not identify the dueterocanonicals [you call them the apocrapha]. Now you are asking what from these dueterocanonicals is necessary …

How do you know which of the New Testament scriptures are "inspired’ and which are necessary? Which New Testament books might not be “inspired”? Are there “inspired” writings [NT era] that are not in the Bible and how whould you know?

You see, just taking the New Testament, there is no where that the books are listed, or the number of books and titles given ‘authoriatively’ with any assurance for the Christian believer …

Many posters have pointed outto you tat the Church pre-exists the New Testament … the writings occurred over time … therefore the compiled writings cannot be the totality of what is sufficient or those Christians who came before would not have had salvation … the Church though did exist and is what Jesus left for witnessing the faith to people … Jesus said go and “preach” the Word to all nations …

Pax

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thanks for your opinion here. It looks like Catholics cannot in fact prove that the Bible actually says that it is “insufficient” or “incomplete,” and that perhaps their “apologetic” script needs to be re-written.

The Catholic Church never say the Bible is insufficient. The Catechism made this very clear. If you happen to have a copy go check the reference:

CCC 128 The Church, as early as apostolic times,104 and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God’s works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

CCC 129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.105 Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.107

I also like to add that the Bible was not made to become a manual for all Christian believers. We are not a religion of the book as I have said in the other thread. You have to understand that our authority concerning moral and faith originate from God himself, and he speaks through his Church. It was also the Church that canonized Scripture which is discussed in this forum.

The Bible no were implies that we can use it as a sole means of interpretation. The Bible does in fact condemn private interpretation. The Epistle of Peter makes this very plainy clear.

2 Peter 3:15-17.

15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.

 

[JRKH]

**We all know that humans are fallible; however. I am asking you to show us where the Bible is fallible? You say that it is “not sufficient” yet you can’t say what in it actually is insufficient. **I want to discuss the points in the article which I linked to in the first post of this thread; and I am trying to address each point in the article, one by one as they ocurr in the article. Please go back and look over the article and the first post, and then get back on track with the topic, and i will be happy to continue discussing with you.

Perhaps I too am missing the point but here is my 2c worth.

No one is saying that the bible is “fallible”, or that it is deficient in some sense, only that it is insufficient. The Bible is a collection of the most basic books of the faith - Not all of the faith. Jesus ministry was 3 years. Yet we can read through the Gospels in what - an hour? How much more was imparted that was never recorded.

That point was shown early on with the reference to Thessalonians. Much of the faith in the early days was in fact passed on orally and collected and documented later.

Saying that Sola Scriptura is wrong isn’t diminishing the importance of the Bible, only placing it in the proper context.

James

 

[TOME]

Hello Protestant101,
I think you may have misunderstood my question or perhaps your answer is jumping too far ahead of what my question asked.

I will put my question in slightly different term, please show me the Book (or Books) of the Bible that list all the Inspired Books of the Bible. That is where in the fullness of Divine Revelation is the definitive list of all inspired books?

My question isn’t seeking anything else but that list.

 

[Nita]

…
All I am asking for is a detailed explanation of something in the Bible that is actually not “complete” or “sufficient.” Catholics say that the Bible is not “sufficient.” Well; not sufficient for what?

Just a couple of examples:
I would say that the Bible is not sufficient to ensure that anyone reading it would recognize the Trinity; that there are 3 Persons in one God.

I would say that the Bible is not sufficient to ensure that the reader would know that Jesus is true God and true man yet only one Person - the divine Second Person of the Trinity. Two natures, one Person.

As a matter of fact, all you would have to do is go into the history of early Christianity to see that Scripture was not sufficient to insure a correct understanding of those doctrines. It took time for the Church to verbally clarify the correct understanding and to reject as heresy all the various teachings that contradicted each other as well as the final teaching infallibly declared by the Church.

Can you name something in the Bible which would come up so short, that it needs to be trumped by something in the apocrypha? (since you say that the apocrypha is also “the word of God” you should be able to easily point out examples).

The deuterocanonicals were not included in the OT because there was something that needed to be “trumped”. They were part of the Septuagint OT writings and the Church determined to include them. Period. (There was no official Jewish OT canon at the time of Our Lord.)

I am wondering why the Protestants chose to exclude them more than a thousand years later. Granted, the Jews eventually (in the Christian era) did determine a canon which did not include the deuterocanonicals. But I don’t see why a Christian would find it better to accept a decision made by the Jewish authorities rather than the one made by the Christian authorities.

Nita

 

[wanner47]

Protestant,

Could you please refer me to where it says in the Bible that you (personally) are an infallible interpreter of Scripture? I can’t seem to find it. Thanks.

 

[NotWorthy]

I am just asking Catholics to please be specific, tell me exactly what in the Bible is NOT sufficient for “salvation;” and what, from the apocryphs needs to be added to it, in order for it to be “complete” enough for salvation? What Bible verse or doctrine, needs somthing from the apocrypha, in order for it to be “complete” or “sufficient?”

Ok, another spurious argument. Can you name something in every other book that is necessary for Salvation. Unless you can, you’ve just thrown out a straw man argument.

 

[NotWorthy]

Protestant,

Could you please refer me to where it says in the Bible that you (personally) are an infallible interpreter of Scripture? I can’t seem to find it. Thanks.

Are you sure? Did you check in the Apocrypha?!?!?

 

[jcrichton]

OK; so are you saying that the Bible is “incomplete” if it does not have the “apocrypha” included? If so, then what specifically in the Bible falls short of giving us the essentials for salvation; without adding something that is written in the apocrypha?

***Hi, Protestant!

…you truely are…

This post did not mention how many books does a Bible contain (though given to reason we must state that the original compilation was made of 73 not Luther’s and others 66); it made reference to the fact that the Holy Scriptures does not include an index to determine which books are Biblical. It was the early Church (Catholic by the way) that deternmined (AD 350±) which books were to be included as part of the cannon and which were not.

You, by relying on your personal interpretation and not listening to the theme presented to you, erroneously jumped to the conclusion that someone was trying to introduced books into what you perceive as the “complete” Bible.

Jesus told the Apostles that He would send another Paraclete that would reveal and teach all the truth:

7 Still, I am telling you the truth: it is for your own good that I am going, because unless I go, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
8 And when he comes, he will show the world how wrong it was, about sin, and about who was in the right, and about judgement:
9 about sin: in that they refuse to believe in me;
10 about who was in the right: in that I am going to the Father and you will see me no more;
11 about judgement: in that the prince of this world is already condemned.
12 I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you to bear now.
13 However, when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking of his own accord, but will say only what he has been told; and he will reveal to you the things to come.
14 He will glorify me, since all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine.
15 Everything the Father has is mine; that is why I said: all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine. (St. John 15:7-15)

So you have the choice to take Jesus at His Word or continue to think that the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the Church and Salvation and that His function was merely to inspire the writings of the Scriptures, a function that would have ceased upon the death of the Twelve/plus Paul!

Maran atha!

Angel

---

 

[grandfather]

The Bible tells us that Jesus established a Church. It tells us that He founded His Church on men. The Church is not founded on scripture. The Bible does not say that it is the foundation of truth. It says the Church is the pilar and foundation of truth. The Bible says that Jesus gave these men authority to teach in His name. The Bible does not say it has authority to teach all the nations, but that those Jesus sent have this authority and He gave it to them. The Bible records all these things about the Church and more. If all authority is in the Bible as Luther and his follwers claim then there is none left to be in the Church. That means the Church has no authority. But the Bible says the opposite. The truths of salvation are contained in the Bible, but the Bible says the Chuch was established by Christ to bring s these truths and teach us. Historically, not theologically, it is evident that those who claim the Bible is the sole authority of faith continually divide themselves into many sepaarate groups believing different doctrines about salvation. This proves that the Bible can not unite believers in one correct understanding of salvation or truth. But they all claim the Bible is sufficient for salvation even though the believe different things about salvation. Logic says that either all of these groups are wrong or one is right. But they all used the Bible only to decide what they believe, meaning most of them or all of them failed to find truth.
The truths of salvation are contained in the Bible, but that does not mean you will be able to find them without the Church and the Bible teaches the Church is necessary. Jesus said to the pharisees that they searched the scrptures thinking that in them they would find eternal life. Then he says to them that He knows the love of God is not in them, meaning they do not have eternal life. This is what THE BIBLE SAYS. So today we see those who also search the scriptures thinking that in them they will find eternal life. But Jesus says in the Bible, unless a man eat my Body and drink my blood He has no life in Him. I am the bread come down from heaven. My body is REAL food. My bloos is REAL drink. Those who would not hear this saying abandoned Him who is eternal life. What do you suppose they did? They went home and continued to search the scriptures thinking that in them they would find eternal life. These are the same people Jesus told that they would die in their sins. What good did the scriptures do them if they searched them thinking they would find life and did not find it?

 

[jcrichton]

The Bible tells us that Jesus established a Church… The Bible does not say that it is the foundation of truth. It says the Church is the pilar and foundation of truth. The Bible says that Jesus gave these men authority to teach in His name. The Bible does not say it has authority to teach all the nations, but that those Jesus sent have this authority and He gave it to them…
Jesus said to the pharisees that they searched the scrptures thinking that in them they would find eternal life. Then he says to them that He knows the love of God is not in them, meaning they do not have eternal life. This is what THE BIBLE SAYS. So today we see those who also search the scriptures thinking that in them they will find eternal life. But Jesus says in the Bible, unless a man eat my Body and drink my blood He has no life in Him. I am the bread come down from heaven. My body is REAL food. My bloos is REAL drink. Those who would not hear this saying abandoned Him who is eternal life. What do you suppose they did? They went home and continued to search the scriptures thinking that in them they would find eternal life. These are the same people Jesus told that they would die in their sins. What good did the scriptures do them if they searched them thinking they would find life and did not find it?

***Hi, grandfather!

I doubt that sola Scriptura loyalists would accept that you have gathered your thoughts from the Holy Scriptures–some may accept it, but they would provide their own interpretations to mean something different…

I truly enjoyed the Pharisees point because they were zealots (no not the sect)… they possessed great schooling, strong personal determination to defend Yahweh’s Laws, they were pious in their study of Scriptures… but ultimately they possessed only human understanding and rejected the Holy Spirit who would lead them to Jeshua (Yeshua)!

Since they could not find Him in the Holy Scriptures they could not open their minds and hearts to Emmanuel (God-with-us).

The sola Scriptura followers would rather see another hundred thousand “denominational churches” be introduced onto the world than to accept that Jesus founded only one Church!

Maran atha!

Angel

---

 

[Southsider433]

I guess our answer as Catholics is that scripture is not insufficient materially. All the info for salvation is there i.e the sacraments of Baptism,the Eucharist,Pennance ect… and the communion of saints, doctrines on Mary, the Trinity ect… the Bible is however insuffecient in interpreting itself. Afterall Paul told Timothy (an apostolically ordained bishop) scripture is profitable for teaching and instructing. But do you think Paul meant it o.k for Timothy to come away with different doctrines, however minor, than what Jesus taught to them (Apostles)? Of course not.

We beleive that the bible cannot be interpreted correctly without either Jesus himself or somebody he appointed to do that for him while he is away. Did not Peter warn that some people were twisting Pauls letters? The Ethiopian official needed direction from Phillip when reading scripture.Jesus himself clarified scripture and showed the true meaning in the scriptures.

If you can see that this book especially needs to be interpreted correctly by the author Himself or whoever He has given this authority to, then you can see why the book itself cannot be the authority of interpretation.

 

[Janet_S]

“What’s Your Authority?”
Many times in Scripture; truths are implied or illustrated,
without being said verbatim; or “proven” expicitly. So in this first post, I would like to challenge the Catholic “script” here; and ask Catholics to prove that the Bible is not sufficient. What in this Holy Book of God would be classed as “insufficient” or “incomplete?” (for salvation). If all you can do is to appeal to Catholic authority; then you have not even come close to answering my first questions here. If The Holy Bible is so “incomplete” or “insufficient” then please let us know exactly where these faults are so that we finally know the whole truth on this matter.

After we discuss this point some; I will be glad to move on to the next point made in the “script.”

First you have to examine what “sufficient” means.

When Protestants talk about “sufficiency” of the Bible, they are talking about 2 different things: Material Sufficiency and Formal Sufficiency.

I found this definition from a Protestant website:
cwrc-rz.org/articles/article-011.php

**Material Sufficiency **means that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation.

**Formal Sufficiency **means that the Bible is clear and that no infallible teaching Magisterium is necessary to interpret it.

In general, Catholics agree with the idea of material sufficiency but not with the idea of formal sufficiency.

And, if you look at the history of the Church, there is good reason for Catholics to reject the idea of material sufficiency. Many heretics of the past have appealed to the Bible (or their interpretation of it) to support their heretical beliefs. This is a quote from St Vincent of Lerins (434 AD)
newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

Chapter 25.
Heretics appeal to Scripture that they may more easily succeed in deceiving.

[64.] Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics also appeal to Scripture? They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture,—through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavour to shelter under words of Scripture. Read the works of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of Jovinian, and the rest of those pests, and you will see an infinite heap of instances, hardly a single page, which does not bristle with plausible quotations from the New Testament or the Old.

 

[Janet_S]

“What’s Your Authority?”
Many times in Scripture; truths are implied or illustrated,
without being said verbatim; or “proven” expicitly. . .
After we discuss this point some; I will be glad to move on to the next point made in the “script.”

Since you accept the Bible as your authority, you must accept that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. After all, this is clearly taught in the Bible.
We can start with John 6, where Christ reminds us of the manna from heaven as a foreshadowing of His coming:

31
Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’"
32
So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.

then Christ tells us what “Bread from Heaven” actually means:

35
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.

and

54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

and Christ reminds us the importance of remaining in Him

John 15:5
I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.

At the last supper, he tells us exactly how we are to follow out His command to eat His flesh and blood so that we remain in Him:

Matthew 26:26
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, 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.

and

Mark 14:22
While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”
23
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it.
24
He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.

again in Luke 22:17

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves;
18
for I tell you (that) from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19
7 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
20
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

After His Resurrection, the Apostles recognized the Lord in the breaking of the bread:

Luke 24:30
And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.
31
With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight.

The Church carried on Christ’s command to eat His flesh and blood so that we could remain in Him, and we see this explained in 1 Corinthians 11:23

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;

So I am really glad to hear you accept the teachings of the Bible part of which is the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[grandfather]

The first book of the New Testament was written by Matthew. It would be good to understand why it was written. How did the Apostles view its function? Was it and the subsequent writing seen by them as the sole authority of the faith? Or were those who carried it with them authorities having been divinely appointed. The Apostles, having been taught by Jesus and instructed by Him to take His teaching to all the world split up into different directions and carried out this command. Some of the teachings of Jesus that they were to carry and preach to the nations were written down in the first of the three synoptic gospels by an Apostle. What was written is a portion, not all, of what Jesus taught and did, according to what was written. What was written tells that Jesus chose and appointed certain men to do His work in spreading His message. He gave them authority to speak in His name, as in the Old Testament God appointed prophets to speak for Him. What is written says the Apostles appointed certain other men to do the same thing. They passed on their authority to do what Jesus told them to do. The first books were not regarded in the very earliest days as the teachers of the faith. They were kind of notes the teachers used to teach. They were essentials and credentials in a sense, because what was written pointed to them as those appointed by Jesus to teach and the people should listen to them or be damned according to Jesus and according to the written document or scroll they carried. He said many would come in His name, but scripture said who the appointed teachers were. Imagine someone in those times saying to Luke, Mark, Ignatius of Antioch, or Polycarp, that they had no authority to teach and the Church had no authority to teach, but all authority came from the Bible alone.

Jesus took authority away from certain groups viewed as teachers of Israel and gave it to others He appointed. The ones He took it from had Scripture as their authority. The pharisees searched the scripture, according to Jesus, but failed to find eternal life. The scriptures do tell of eternal life, but the pharisees failed to find it in them. Another group of men who were teachers among the Jews were called scribes. They were self appointed, but claimed scripture as their authority.

In the Old Testament we see the authority and power of God asserted. When the prophets spoke to the people what was their authority according to scripture? They did not speak in their own name. They claimed it was God’s message they delivered. They said “thus saith the Lord”. What authority did the scribes claim to teach at the time of Jesus? There had been no prophets around for centuries, but they had what the prophets said and did written down in scripture. The authority of the scribes was scripture and when asked how they could back up whatever they taught the answer was not, “thus saith the Lord”, but “it is written.” This was lesser authority than the prophet, but not having any prophets around scripture was what the Jews used to know what God wanted of them. They called Jesus “teacher” and asked Jesus what authority He had to say what He said and His answer scared them. He did not say, “thus saith…”. He did not say,“it is written”. He said, “… I say unto you”. He was speaking in His own name, not authority taken from scripture, or even given Him directly by God. The Jews were shocked. Even Moses did not claim to have his own authority. “I say unto you”, was a claim the Jews had never heard from anyone until it came from the mouth of Jesus. I AM the authority.

What is the authority the Protestant claims? His claimed authority is scripture, the authority of the scribe. “It is written”. His doctrine says he has no authority to teach, and it denies any man’s authority to teach, because he says the Bible alone is the rule of faith, even though the Bible says Jesus gave authority to His Church. The Protestant sees no illogic in this. Does the Bible say Jesus gave authority to His Church or does it not? Does the Bible say it is the sole rule of faith or does it not? The Bible confirms the authority of the Church. The Bible does not confirm the Protestsant doctrine that scripture is the sole rule of faith and that the Church has no authority. The reason Protestants must close their eyes to what the Bible clearly says, while claiming the Bible’s authority, is that the Bible would force them to recognize the authority of the Church, the one true Church founded by Christ, sent into the world to bring His truth and the “hard teaching” of the life giving bread come down from heaven, the Eucharist.

 

[Bamm]

grandfather,

I agreed with you up until the last paragraph. Don’t lump all Protestants into that fine little mold you have formed for them. They won’t fit.

However, when you speak of the authority going to the church, keep in mind it is not the oraganization called the Catholic Church that is the church that has the authority although many of her members do. It is Christ’s church which are all that believe on Him and have been touched by the Holy Spirit through whom Jesus passes this authority to His church.

Bamm

 

[Bamm]

Most Protestants partake of the body and blood Christ, also. And they take it very serious. None that I know of does it as often as the Catholic Churches do. But, when Jesus made this offering to His deciples, He was partaking of a full meal. The early churches had pot luck style dinners and this is when they had their Communion like Christ did. So, in all faithfulness, we should all, Protestants and Catholics alike; celebrate Him with every meal we consume.

Bamm