Ordinary Coloradan said:
Do not put up with the leftists in your diocese – complain, file complaints against them under Canon 1039 and 915.

Demand investigation of these crypto-socialists wolves in sheep’s clothing.

In my area, I fear it would fall on deaf ears. I live in the Richmond, Va., Diocese and my parish priest is stuck in the ’60s, a real anti-war radical. Listening to him throughout his tenure at my church and esp. since Iraq-war bashing started at full tilt, it’s easy to see where his allegiances lie (as opposed to anti-abortion candidates).

Another church up the road welcomes illegals with open arms (to fill empty pews), and some folks have admitted to leaving that church because of its help with fraudulent ID cards!

This is one of the most liberal diocese around, and the most recent bishop transferred to us (from Honolulu – land of liberals!) said that our diocese is known for being “off the reservation” yet he has done nothing to rein anyone in.

I was born and raised Catholic, attended Catholic elementary and high schools and only donate what I think is fair for the upkeep of the church or our parish’s immediate needs that are stipulated in the collection designations.

“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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Lord is telling you that without his flesh and blood, you have no life in you — no eternal life. I think, Trollman, that has more than a little something to do with salvation. It is not an insignificant doctrine. You said yourself: “The Lord’s Supper is basic stuff, Christianity 101.”

Which one is it, Trollman, “basic stuff”, “Christianity 101″, or “not a doctrine that affects salvation”?

What is the purpose of the Lord’s Supper? He commanded them to “do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” The bread was to put in remembrance the breaking of His body, and the wine, the shedding of His blood. Without the breaking of His body, the shedding of His blood, the death of a flawless, sinless sacrifice, there is no salvation.

The body and blood refer to His atoning death on the cross. Those who reject His atoning death on the cross have no salvation. As the Bible plainly states in many places, not everything Jesus said was meant literally.

Those who incorrectly observe the Lord’s Supper are condemned (1st Cor. 11:27-29), but not over the basis of whether or not it is the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. Rather, they are condemned if they eat it without the proper attitude and conduct.

But after lots of prayer and study, I realized that Jesus could not have been speaking figuratively when he taught us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The Jews in his audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if they had misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally – when he meant his words to be taken figuratively – he could have easily clarified his point. In fact, since many disciples stopped following Jesus because of this teaching (v. 60), he would have been morally obliged to explain the saying in purely symbolic terms.

But he never did.

First, note that this does nothing to explain how Jesus could command His fellow Jews, still under the Law of Moses, to drink literal blood without sinning.

Second, it fails for another reason. It obviously was meant to drive off people. Jesus often said hard things, in order to sift the wheat from the chaff. His words were effective in achieving that end, only those most devoted to Him remained with Him, and even they struggled with it (John 6:60-62).

If you look at the context of Jesus’ discussion in John 6, it becomes apparent that Jesus said what He said to intentionally drive off those who only followed Him superficially. The context starts in John 6:2.

The crowd supposedly follows Him, but Jesus rebukes them because, according to Him, “you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled” (John 6:26).

They didn’t want a Messiah that would die for their sins, but one who would reign as an earthly king, free Israel from Roman domination, and restore Israel to its former days of Solomonic splendor (John 6:14-15, 62). So Jesus had a reason for not clarifying His words – which caused the half-hearted to leave.

Furthermore, you see other examples where Jesus spoke figuratively, but didn’t bother to explain Himself (John 2:18-22), and could only be understood at a later time. Jesus often plants seeds, which would only make sense to his listeners at a later time.

There are many other examples where Jesus intentionally teaches in such a way as not to be understood – Matthew 13:34-43. Jesus wasn’t just at times intentionally difficult towards the general public, but also to His Apostles, hence their response to Jesus “Lo, now You are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech” (John 16:29).

This is further seen when you contrast the Apostles’ reaction to Jesus’ command to drink blood in John 6 and Matthew 26:27-28. In the one example, the Apostles are aghast at the thought of drinking His blood. In the second example, there is no hint of shock or horror at the thought of drinking His “blood” in the cup. Why? Because they could plainly see it was wine, not literal blood. This also makes sense in light of Acts 15:29, where the Jewish Christians either 1. thought it was still unlawful to drink blood, or 2. the thought of consuming blood was still revolting. Why would they still be offended at the consumption of blood, if they had been drinking regularly cups of blood? All of this suggests the “blood” in the Lord’s supper is really wine, not blood.

In Matt. 26:29, after Jesus has declared that it was His “blood,” He goes right back to referring to it as wine. In 1st Cor. 11:26-28, after Paul quotes Jesus as saying that the bread is His body, Paul then repeatedly refers to it as bread, not flesh.

So the Hahns’ objection fails by a large margin.

SylviaMarie said:

Nor did any Christian, for over one thousand years, ever deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. No wonder.

That is an assumption, and assertion without good proof. In light of the fact that it contradicts the teachings of the Bible, I think it is a flawed assumption.

SylviaMarie said:

I recommend his book (if you are not afraid) and most especially because Michelle’s blog is not the proper place to discuss your many other protests against the Catholic Church.

I agree, it is not. That is why I did not go into them here. I only mentioned the Lord’s Supper in response to the claim that the Catholic church was the original and only church until the Protestant Reformation.

Michelle’s blog is also not the place to be going around making false claims about Catholic bashing.

SylviaMarie said:

You might want to rethink this view you have of yourself after presenting the litany of criticisms against Catholic teaching. Methinks thou dost PROTEST too much to continue claiming your non-Protestantism.

Actually, what I have said has been in direct response to what has been said here. This is opposed to those who were posting in response to “Catholic bashing” that wasn’t there. I have thought, prayed, and studied long on this subject. That my position has already taken into account your reasons for opposing it goes to show that I have done my homework.

The debate about the wine in the Lord’s Supper – whether or not it is literal blood – is not a doctrine that affects salvation.

Let’s review:

“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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Lord is telling you that without his flesh and blood, you have no life in you — no eternal life. I think, Trollman, that has more than a little something to do with salvation. It is not an insignificant doctrine. You said yourself: “The Lord’s Supper is basic stuff, Christianity 101.”

Which one is it, Trollman, “basic stuff”, “Christianity 101″, or “not a doctrine that affects salvation”?

Start by showing me how it is even possible for Jesus to command His fellow Jews to drink literal blood without sinning.
* * *
The Lord’s Supper is basic stuff, Christianity 101.

Okay, I will show you how it is possible. Basic stuff. Christianity 101.

The following is an excerpt from Rome Sweet Home by Scott & Kimberly Hahn, pp 49-50. Scott Hahn gives this teaching far better than I ever could.

Begin excerpt:
__________

Meanwhile, I was also hired as a part-time instructor at a local Presbyterian seminary. The subject of my first class was the Gospel of John . . . . When I got to the sixth chapter of the Gospel in my preparation, I spent weeks of careful study on the following verses (Jn 6:52-68):

The Jews then disputed among themselves saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever. . . . “
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

Immediately, I wondered about what my professors had taught me – and what I was preaching to my congregation – about the Eucharist being a mere symbol – a profound symbol, to be sure, but just a symbol.

But after lots of prayer and study, I realized that Jesus could not have been speaking figuratively when he taught us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The Jews in his audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if they had misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally – when he meant his words to be taken figuratively – he could have easily clarified his point. In fact, since many disciples stopped following Jesus because of this teaching (v. 60), he would have been morally obliged to explain the saying in purely symbolic terms.

But he never did. Nor did any Christian, for over one thousand years, ever deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. No wonder.
_______________
End excerpt.

Trollman, think about it for a while. Study about it and pray about it over an extended period. Scott Hahn presents an excellent example of seeking the truth of the Lord’s teachings. I recommend his book (if you are not afraid) and most especially because Michelle’s blog is not the proper place to discuss your many other protests against the Catholic Church.

I am not protesting against the Catholic church, I am not anti-Catholic . . .

You might want to rethink this view you have of yourself after presenting the litany of criticisms against Catholic teaching. Methinks thou dost PROTEST too much to continue claiming your non-Protestantism.

Unbelievable.
Maybe I’m ignorant, maybe I’m naive,
maybe I’m just a hopeless apostate Jew…but…When I was saved I was lead to believe that what was important was Jesus/Joshua’s birth, death, and rescurection(sp).
Doctrinal differences-while important-don’t come close to the BIG PICTURE!

Doctrinal matters do matter. Not all doctrines are essential for salvation, but some are. You can think you are a Christian and yet be lost due to doctrinal error. There were some who believed in Christ who taught that you were saved by faith in Christ plus circumcision (Acts 15:1, 5).

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul addresses these people who taught them that they could only be saved by faith in Christ and circumcision. Even though it was “merely” a difference in doctrine, Paul condemns both those who teach it (Gal. 1:6-9), and those who follow it (Gal. 5:1-6).

The debate about the wine in the Lord’s Supper – whether or not it is literal blood – is not a doctrine that affects salvation. But it is just the tip of the iceberg. Some of the doctrines of the Catholic church do matter in regards to salvation. Some of the things they teach can cost you your salvation. My primary point in bringing this up is to refute the claim that the Catholic church is the “first” and “original” church. The true original Church is composed of those who abide by the teachings of Peter Acts 2:41 (and the other Apostles and prophets), not those who can claim some chain of physical connection (there is no Scriptural reference that would indicate a passing on of Peter’s so-called “papacy”).

Jude 3 urges Christians to “contend earnestly for the faith [the body of doctrine, set of teachings] which was once for all handed down to the saints.” No one, not an apostle (Gal. 1:6-9) or even Peter (Gal. 2:11-21) is free to set aside or change the Law of Christ.

cubbiegal said:

Radical Islam wants to obliterate Judeo/Christianity.
We need to be directing our “fire” at THAT evil-not each other.

I don’t think that is the big picture. The big picture is going to heaven or hell for eternity. Death is bad, but the second death is far worse. “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

You can find the same information if you read through the articles here and here, and I’m sure there’s more to be found if you have more time than I do to dig.

The word has more than one possible meaning – much like the phrase the “Bush Doctrine.”

KitFox said:

As to your last paragraph, I’m pretty sure that Jesus addresses the Mosaic dietary laws to which you refer pretty succinctly in Mark 7:18-23.

Jesus wasn’t nullifying the dietary restrictions in the Law of Moses at the time of Mark 7. If that is what He in fact was teaching, He would be flat out contradicting Himself when He said,

Do not think I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:17-19)

Jesus was not free to set aside the Law of Moses during His earthly ministry. Why? Because as Paul plainly states in Gal. 4:4, “God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” Jesus wasn’t above the Law, He was under the Law. The question is, when was Jesus freed from the Law of Moses? When was He free to make commandments that differed from the Law of Moses?

In Romans 7:1, Paul, speaking to Jewish Christians, reminds them that “the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives.” So, in 7:4, Paul points out that “Therefore, my brethren, you [Jewish Christians] also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christi.” They died to the Law of Moses when they died with Christ, by being baptized into Jesus’ death on the cross (Rom. 6:3). The Law was taken out of the way when He “nailed it to the cross (Col. 2:14).

Jesus remained under the Law of Moses until He died on the cross. Notice that His death had to occur before the New Covenant could be instituted – “For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives” (Heb. 9:17).

It was only under the New Covenant that the dietary restrictions were removed (Acts 10:9-16; 11:2-18).

In fact, even after this, if you look at Acts 15:29, James tells the Gentile Christians to “abstain… from blood…” There are two plausible interpretations:

1. The consumption of blood was still forbidden under the New Covenant, even though the dietary restrictions regarding certain animals were removed (I think this interpretation is unlikely).

2. For the sake of not offending the Jewish Christians and stirring division, (many of whom were uneasy about going against the Law of Moses, even though they were no longer under it – see Rom. 14; 1st Cor. 8 ) James wanted the Gentiles to refrain from eating blood, even though it was lawful for them to do so. This understanding I think is more likely.

But which ever interpretation you take, they both count against the doctrine that the Lord’s Supper consists of literal blood. Either it is still wrong to consume blood, or the Jewish Christians didn’t think they were consuming blood by taking the Lord’s Supper (or why else would they still be offended by the consumption of blood?).

If all of this is so, then why does Mark 7:19b declare “Thus He declared all foods clean”? Mark is adding a parenthetical, explanatory note that would address the (then) current audience – that all foods are now clean. Mark provides another explanatory note, for example, in Mark 7:3-4.

Mark answers (then) current dilemmas by “altering” (inspired clarifications to an audience that was different than Jesus’ original audience) the teachings of Christ so as to directly address the problems of the Church at the time of the writing. In Mark 10:12, Mark has Jesus saying “and if she divorces her husband…” Under the Law of Moses, women could not divorce their husbands, only the husband could give a divorce. See Matthew 19:8-9 & Luke 16:18 where they record Jesus as making no mention of women being able to divorce men.

In the Jewish world (under the Law of Moses), a woman could not divorce her husband. Under Gentile (Roman) law, a woman could divorce her husband. If Jesus, addressing a Jewish audience under the Law of Moses, if He addressed the matter of women divorcing their husbands, it wouldn’t make sense, it would be an anachronism. But it does make since if Mark, guided by the Spirit, amends the words of Jesus by addressing the current problems of the Church (where women could divorce their husbands). Mark’s Gospel was addressed primarily to Gentiles in the Church (hence, Mark 7:3-4).

If you reject all this, then you are stuck with contradicting Paul who said 1. Jesus was under the Law, 2. that you stay under the Law until you die, and 3. with Jesus who explicitly says He was not setting aside the Law during His ministry.

So your problem remains.

As to your last paragraph, I’m pretty sure that Jesus addresses the Mosaic dietary laws to which you refer pretty succinctly in Mark 7:18-23.

No, she’s not wrong–there is a long-standing affiliation between Eastern Orthodox and Roman sects of the Catholic (a word which, after all, means universal) Church. Go to the Wikipedia entry for “Catholic,” and you will find (emphasis mine):

Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous (in Latin, sui iuris) particular Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome — the Pope. They preserve the liturgical, theological and devotional traditions of the various Eastern Christian Churches with which they are associated.

You are quoting wiki as an authoritative source? If you look at the Catholic page and the Orhtodox page, you’ll notice that there is a wide variety of meanings different groups assign to the word “Catholic.”

If the two groups are in fact one, then how can there be a “Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism” section? Regardless, this is a purely semantic argument anyway, and I reject your terminology.

You want to insist Orthodox = Catholic in your understanding? Fine. Now show me that the early Church, the Church of the NT taught the same things as the Catholic church. Start by showing me how it is even possible for Jesus to command His fellow Jews to drink literal blood without sinning.

KitFox said:

I’m not even going to delve into the issue of divergent versions of early Christianity–I am no theologian. I’ll leave that to EQ, who I feel is far better at it than I could hope to be. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the majority of non-Catholic churches in America today (even those who bill themselves as “non-denominational”) have roots in the original schismatic factions of the Renaissance.

I think your faith in EQ is misplaced. I asked her the same question about the wine in the Lord’s Supper before, but she ducked it. Really, what can you say? The Catholic church is clearly wrong, but they can’t possibly be wrong, right? The Lord’s Supper is basic stuff, Christianity 101.

On October 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pm, Trollman said:

Again, you are wrong. You forgot about the Orthodox churches. It just goes to show your conceit (which always rears its head on these kinds of threads).

No, she’s not wrong–there is a long-standing affiliation between Eastern Orthodox and Roman sects of the Catholic (a word which, after all, means universal) Church. Go to the Wikipedia entry for “Catholic,” and you will find (emphasis mine):

Eastern Catholic Churches are autonomous (in Latin, sui iuris) particular Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome — the Pope. They preserve the liturgical, theological and devotional traditions of the various Eastern Christian Churches with which they are associated.

I’m not even going to delve into the issue of divergent versions of early Christianity–I am no theologian. I’ll leave that to EQ, who I feel is far better at it than I could hope to be. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the majority of non-Catholic churches in America today (even those who bill themselves as “non-denominational”) have roots in the original schismatic factions of the Renaissance.

We don’t just “consider” you a protestant. You are a protestant. Possibly you haven’t understood the basic meaning of that word. All Christians who are not Catholic are by definition protestant.

What you have said is false. The definition you gave even proves my point – you can be a non-Catholic Christian without being a Protestant.

I reject your terminology. I am not protesting against the Catholic church, I am not anti-Catholic, I am pro-the God of the Bible.

Just like I am not so much against gun control laws as that I am pro-gun. One is a negative term, the other is a positive term. The primary emphasis isn’t that I’m against something, but that I am for something.

SylviaMarie said:

Prior to the Protestant Reformation there was no church besides the Catholic church. The Reformation was a protest in opposition to Roman Catholicism. All denominations that call themselves Christian but not Catholic are derivatives of the original Protestant Reformation and are just a continuation of that ongoing protest.

Again, you are wrong. You forgot about the Orthodox churches. It just goes to show your conceit (which always rears its head on these kinds of threads).

The fact of the matter is, there has always been a diversity of beliefs/opinions in Christianity. That was true even before the “Protestant Reformation.” It is just that, through the abuse of power, they were suppressed and never heard of. The “Protestant Reformation” happened when it did because, at that time, the Catholic Church could no longer crush all dissent.

In fact, there are many doctrines of the Catholic church that simply weren’t there in the first century Church.

The wine served at the Lord’s Supper is not literal blood.
1. Consuming blood was against the Law of Moses (Lev. 17).
2. Jesus was born under the Law (Gal. 4:4). He remained under the Law until He died upon the cross (Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:14; Heb. 9:16-17).
3. Jesus gave His fellow Jews literal blood to drink (according to Catholic doctrine) the night before He died, while He was still under the Law of Moses (Matt. 26:28).
4. Therefore, if the Catholic teaching is correct, that would mean Jesus broke the Law of Moses – something He explicitly said He would not do (Matt. 5:17-19).
5. If He broke the Law of Moses, which He was under, then that would make Him a sinner. That would also mean He was no longer fit to die for anyone’s sins but His own. But the Bible teaches that He was sinless (Heb. 4:15).

And there are many other things that the Catholic church teaches that was not there in the first century church (there was no hint of a papacy in NT times, etc.). If anything, Catholics are the true Protestants – protesting against the plain teachings of the Bible.

So when you claim that there simply was no church apart from the Catholic church, you do so while ignoring the facts of history and the Bible.

All Christians who are not Catholic are by definition protestant.

the orthodox may disagree.

Prior to the Protestant Reformation there was no church besides the Catholic church.

the orthodox broke away around 1000 AD