Why Are So Many Evangelicals Turning to the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Reuben J View Post
Not sure about ‘the honor all’, maybe ‘love all’ was the word.

As for the Eucharist, Catholic’ stance is that not all ‘Eucharist’ are valid except for her own and where the priests clebrating it has apostolic succession according to her definition.

I’m curious as to what you would suggest to allow progression?
Yes, a very good question! Catholics are not the only ones to claim they are the only true Church. I rub shoulders with a conservative group who also are the “true church.” There is common ground for much doctrine and fellowship but eventually it becomes my way or the highway.
 
2 of the most notable are Tertullian and Augustine.

Tertullian:
“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure.” - Against Marcion Book 4, Chapter 40
newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm

“He says, it is true, that “the flesh profits nothing;” but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits nothing,”— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.” Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be “the bread which comes down from heaven,” impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling” - On the Resurrection of the Flesh - Chapter 37
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

Augustine:
“Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true?** For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance** to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood, in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith.” - Letter 98 - Section 9
newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm

“Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - On Christian Doctrine Book 3
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

More Augustine - earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm
david.heitzman.net/sermons227-229a.html

Summary by 20th Century Patristic Scholar - archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n451/mode/2up
Susan,

Tim Staples has a tract… explaining what Tertullian and St. Augustine were saying. You’re not the first to believe St. Augustine was a modern day protestant. 😛

Link is here.

It’s interesting Susan that you refer to him as an authority regarding the Eucharist (again, I believe the evidence shows that he did profess belief in the Real Presence) but … do you also believe him in his stating what books comprise the canon of scripture? If you believe him on the former, you should believe him on the latter. That would be consistent.

If you keep reading and studying Saints like St Augustine they begin to sound very, very Catholic in their theology. 😃
 
Susan,

Tim Staples has a tract… explaining what Tertullian and St. Augustine were saying. You’re not the first to believe St. Augustine was a modern day protestant. 😛

Link is here.

It’s interesting Susan that you refer to him as an authority regarding the Eucharist (again, I believe the evidence shows that he did profess belief in the Real Presence) but … do you also believe him in his stating what books comprise the canon of scripture? If you believe him on the former, you should believe him on the latter. That would be consistent.

If you keep reading and studying Saints like St Augustine they begin to sound very, very Catholic in their theology. 😃
Yes, some of these quotes were posted earlier in the thread. None of the quotes by Tertullian or Augustine say that the bread and wine change substance. When you search for the original source and read it in context you can see it isn’t explaining transubstantiation. Even modern churches that believe in symbolic Eucharist refer to the bread and wine as body and blood because that is what their significance is. This doesn’t mean that there is a change in physical substance.
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0322.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm

The tract also quotes The Apostolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus which is “neither the authentic work of St. Hippolytus nor the oldest church regulations but are a later adaptation of the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus. The unknown author of the canons generally follows the order of his source and treats the same subjects: ordination, catechumenate, Baptism, prayer, and discipline of the Christian community. But he alters the text when he wishes and makes additions of his own.” britannica.com/topic/Canons-of-Saint-Hippolytus

And it contains a quote from Cyril of Jerusalem who does clearly describe transubstantiation. JND Kelly refers to Cyril of Jerusalem in his book Early Christian Doctrines as the “pioneer of the conversion doctrine.” archive.org/stream/pdfy-CY7YNVnvFwggDjnT/103911481-J-N-D-Kelly-Early-Christian-Doctrines#page/n453/mode/2up

I actually didn’t mean to imply that Augustine was an authority on the Eucharist. He certainly has many valuable teachings, but his writings are not inerrant. I was simply trying to provide evidence that there used to be different accepted understandings of the Eucharist. The main reason I do not believe that transubstantiation occurs is because despite 17 possible occurrences of Eucharistic miracles, modern day science shows that the substance of the elements do not change. whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/science-proves-that-consecrated-wafers-are-still-wheat-and-not-jesus/
 
The main reason I do not believe that transubstantiation occurs is because despite 17 possible occurrences of Eucharistic miracles, modern day science shows that the substance of the elements do not change. whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/science-proves-that-consecrated-wafers-are-still-wheat-and-not-jesus/
;)… He is hidden from elemental senses, and revealed to the Spiritual.

Colossians 2

See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.9For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily,10*and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

His Eucharist is not a miracle to give proof, but a miracle of faith to foster faith. I hope I never have to be shown proof of what is happening Spiritually in consecration.

It’s like demanding/testing modern believers to perform miracles to verify Christianity because they did in Scripture. Why do we not see miracles performed like in the Apostolic days?
 
Yes, a very good question! Catholics are not the only ones to claim they are the only true Church. I rub shoulders with a conservative group who also are the “true church.” There is common ground for much doctrine and fellowship but eventually it becomes my way or the highway.
I assume you are speaking of the Protestant denomination called the Church of Christ of which there are three different denominations. Can there be more than One True Church? Especially if they teach contradicting dogma. The truth can never be rejected for convenience sake, so yes eventually it becomes the truth or the highway.

There is a great deal of difference between claiming to be the Church and presenting compelling evidence from scripture and history. What scriptural and historic evidence does that group, with which you rub shoulders, present? Can they present writings of that group going back to the apostles? Can they name some of their great teachers going back to the apostles? Do they have apostolic succession? What scriptural evidence do they present demonstrating they are the true Church?

Catholics and the Orthodox can present evidence from scripture, writings back to the apostles, name great teachers and both have apostolic succession. The question is to whom did Christ give the keys of the kingdom naming him Rock on which Christ would build His Church?
 
The main reason I do not believe that transubstantiation occurs is because despite 17 possible occurrences of Eucharistic miracles, modern day science shows that the substance of the elements do not change. whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/science-proves-that-consecrated-wafers-are-still-wheat-and-not-jesus/
Science also says the Noah Ark account is a impossibility and that creationism is totally false, among other things.

I think the confirmed Eucharistic miracles are God’s way of telling us to lean not on our own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

Have a blessed day.
 
I assume you are speaking of the Protestant denomination called the Church of Christ of which there are three different denominations. Can there be more than One True Church? Especially if they teach contradicting dogma. The truth can never be rejected for convenience sake, so yes eventually it becomes the truth or the highway.

There is a great deal of difference between claiming to be the Church and presenting compelling evidence from scripture and history. What scriptural and historic evidence does that group, with which you rub shoulders, present? Can they present writings of that group going back to the apostles? Can they name some of their great teachers going back to the apostles? Do they have apostolic succession? What scriptural evidence do they present demonstrating they are the true Church?

Catholics and the Orthodox can present evidence from scripture, writings back to the apostles, name great teachers and both have apostolic succession. The question is to whom did Christ give the keys of the kingdom naming him Rock on which Christ would build His Church?
Right, anyone can claim anything. But only two Churches have the pedigree to make the one true Church claim. Catholic/Orthodox. That’s it.
 
The author is not using the word substance correctly. What you and the author mean is the accidents don’t change.
Also the word “emotional” should rather be “spiritual”. Our belief in transubstantiation is not based on emotion, but the spiritual food who is Jesus, made into food and drink through Sacramental consecration.

Yes, at first it looks bogus, like “magic,” but “a closer look” shows that the transubstantiation really occurs*because we want it to.This is why the Raelian experiment will be ignored by the Church, but also why we should ignore the Church’s pronouncements about reality, for theyreflect sets of claims that are untestable but satisfy our emotional needs. The words, “A closer look, however, reveals an intimate fit between the deepest desires of the human heart and what actually happens in the sacraments,” shows the ability of the Church to maintain its claims by simply making stuff up.

This is the antithesis of receiving Communion.
 
And the Assyrian Church of the East.
Even though they are considered heretical, I’ve always sort of lumped them in with the EO churches.

Anglicans can make the same claim, because like the Assyrians, stem from Catholicism. So both of their pedigrees are reliant upon Catholicism’s trustworthiness.
 
;)… He is hidden from elemental senses, and revealed to the Spiritual.

Colossians 2

See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.9For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily,10*and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

His Eucharist is not a miracle to give proof, but a miracle of faith to foster faith. I hope I never have to be shown proof of what is happening Spiritually in consecration.
This sounds like John Calvin’s teaching that Christ is present spiritually, but not physically. What is the difference between his explanation and the one you presented?

I thought that in Catholicism the elements were supposed to change or convert. Isn’t that what transubstantiation means?

Council of Trent:
*CHAPTER IV.
On Transubstantiation. *

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine,** a conversion is made 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; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

I would think that this means that the whole substance would change from wheat to flesh. Isn’t that what the Eucharist miracles are supposed to reflect?
It’s like demanding/testing modern believers to perform miracles to verify Christianity because they did in Scripture. Why do we not see miracles performed like in the Apostolic days?
There are still miracles occurring every day, but they are not as frequent. If I am told that a miracle (transubstantiation) is occurring every day, then my natural response is to investigate and learn more. I look for scientific evidence to show that this miracle is occurring. If this does happen every time, it could be very easy to prove. If it isn’t so easy to prove, I would think that something special is occurring at each Mass, but that doesn’t include a change in substance.
 
Even though they are considered heretical, I’ve always sort of lumped them in with the EO churches.

Anglicans can make the same claim, because like the Assyrians, stem from Catholicism. So both of their pedigrees are reliant upon Catholicism’s trustworthiness.
Considered heretical by whom? I’m sure they’re considered heretical by the Orthodox, but as for the Catholic Church, they are viewed in much the same way as the Orthodox are.

Unlike the Anglicans, the Assyrian Church has valid Holy Orders. So the comparison with the Anglicans works only as well as comparing the Anglicans to the Orthodox.
 
What is the correct definition of substance to use to describe transubstantiation?
I liked this exchange from the comment box of your link. Dylan explains the authors fallacy, and of all the anti-catholic mocking comments, is the only one to be called rude as he is being mocked by the author.
Dylan
Posted October 30, 2014 at 11:52 am | Permalink
The argument being made here is a straw man. The Catholic theological position in fact depends on all the physical evidence (accidents) being consistent with wheat, because it is the essence (in the case of bread and wine, “substance”) which changes. The position depends on a Thomistic-Aristotelian metaphysical understanding of substance and accident which modern natural science doesn’t have the capacity for. If you want to argue the issue, you have to claim that the metaphysical language has no content, or, admitting the validity of metaphysics, challenge the position’s metaphysical cogency. It doesn’t take a faithful Catholic to recognize this, just someone who knows what he’s talking about.
whyevolutionistrue


Posted October 30, 2014 at 12:20 pm | Permalink 

Thank you for telling us how this magic trick works. Now apologize for your rudeness, or you’ll never post here again.
 
Considered heretical by whom? I’m sure they’re considered heretical by the Orthodox, but as for the Catholic Church, they are viewed in much the same way as the Orthodox are.

Unlike the Anglicans, the Assyrian Church has valid Holy Orders. So the comparison with the Anglicans works only as well as comparing the Anglicans to the Orthodox.
Nestorianism is a ancient heresy they have subscribed to.

Protestants who object to Mary as Mother of God make the same mistake by trying to split up Christ into two.
 
I liked this exchange from the comment box of your link. Dylan explains the authors fallacy, and of all the anti-catholic mocking comments, is the only one to be called rude as he is being mocked by the author.
Can you explain or share a source that explains ‘Thomistic-Aristotelian metaphysical understanding of substance and accident?’
 
Can you explain or share a source that explains ‘Thomistic-Aristotelian metaphysical understanding of substance and accident?’
Aristotle wrote a couple of works Categories and Metaphysics which talk about substance and accidents.

The point is: you cannot subject metaphysical and ethical claims to the scientific method. When the author of your link tried, he was creating a strawman; claiming something Catholics do not believe.
 
I thought that in Catholicism the elements were supposed to change or convert. Isn’t that what transubstantiation means?

Council of Trent:
*CHAPTER IV.
On Transubstantiation. *

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine,** a conversion is made 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; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

I would think that this means that the whole substance would change from wheat to flesh. Isn’t that what the Eucharist miracles are supposed to reflect?
Yes, right. The substance changed to the substance of the divine Lord.

The key word is ‘substance’.
 
Nestorianism is a ancient heresy they have subscribed to.

Protestants who object to Mary as Mother of God make the same mistake by trying to split up Christ into two.
The Assyrian Church was considered to be Nestorian in the past, just as the Oriental Orthodox were once considered to be Monophysite. This is no longer the case. Rome has issued joint Christological statements with the Church of the East. Also, there are agreements between the Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church for communing each other’s members.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top