Catholic church doesnt follow ALL of Christ's teachings?!?! I need your help BIG time..

[jorgeraul3]

I have something to add here that hasn't been mentioned.

He says the Eucharist should not be taken as often as we take it. But when Jesus resurrected the first time he met with the apostles he blessed the bread and that's how they recognized him. Then latter on he did it again before ascending into heaven.

[Tim Kirchoff]

Originally Posted by Charlotte408

ok so heres what your referring to in exodus...

The Table
23 "Make a table of acacia wood—two cubits long, a cubit wide and a cubit and a half high. [e] 24 Overlay it with pure gold and make a gold molding around it. 25 Also make around it a rim a handbreadth [f] wide and put a gold molding on the rim. 26 Make four gold rings for the table and fasten them to the four corners, where the four legs are. 27 The rings are to be close to the rim to hold the poles used in carrying the table. 28 Make the poles of acacia wood, overlay them with gold and carry the table with them. 29 And make its plates and dishes of pure gold, as well as its pitchers and bowls for the pouring out of offerings. 30 Put the bread of the Presence on this table to be before me at all times.

and i have to say that i read the whole chapter, to make sure i got it in context..and it seems to be talking about something else, like, the offerings from the isrealites...and i will dwell among them...the gold silver yarn....nothing about unleavened bread...could this be just another...ritual?? Not the passover like quoted above? Oh, I'm sorry I just read your quote and you said its the 'new' passover...but, why is it the 'new' one? why did we choose to use this part of exodus to replace what Christ had originally taught as the passover? Sorry if these are .. idiotic questions im totally ignorant and just want a firm understanding so i can back up what i say...

Verse 30 mentions the "bread of the Presence"- and we as Catho.ics, of course, refer to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The OT (Old Testament) bread of the Presence was an offering of unleavened bread. You might also take note of verse 29, which talks of drink offerings (I don't think they were just offering water, if you catch my meaning). Also, it is admirable of you to try to fully understand these things before you tr to explain them to others. When you do finally talk to him, trust in the Holy Spirit to help you

Why should we be limited? Idk, i would like to say we shouldn't, but it begs the answer, because thats what Christ told us to do. Again, just...thinking outloud..and I'm sure he's probably gonna think of these things too...

The Sabbath commemorated the creation of the world; Easter commemorates a date even more significant: the day of its salvation, when Jesus conquered death. The latter date, I think, is worth observing more than once a year.

Ok so we DONT directly observe all feasts as put out by Christ, BUT, we do have some form or other OF them in which their spirit is present? And is that JUST passover that we're a little off on? is there any others I should be prepared for? And I can just tell the guy that, yes, we do celebrate passover in the sense that Christ intended, in the form of HolyWeek, and we par take in communion more often than He said..because...oh i wish this was live conversation...

Well, one big reason we celebrate the Eucharist weekly is that's what the early Christians did: they met once per week and broke bread together. The early church, one would suppose, is closest to Christ, and the modern church which is closest to the early church is closest to Christ- do you catch my meaning there? The early Christians didn't observe the Mosaic law, why should modern ones? If there is no hint of "god the mother" in the theology of the early Christians (as opposed to Gnostics), then there is no valid reason for such a theological innovation.

[DOShea]

Originally Posted by Charlotte408

--That totally lost me, I'm going to have to read all that a couple times...

Ok, so, ... your saying that passover is a Jewish liturgical feast? I'm confused because, were the ones that believe in Christ?? I thought that was the difference? We both believe in God, but we believe that Jesus Christ was ACTUALLY him/his son..while Jews believe he was just a prophet? I'm confused on how its IN our bible, CHRIST says he wants us to do it, desires us to do it, WE are the ones supposed to believe in him, yet, we DONT follow this, and, the Jews, who DONT believe in Him...do....

Let me try to explain it a different way. The question is, why don't we celebrate the Passover?

To understand why we don't celebrate it, you have to understand the relationship between God and man in terms of covenants. There were many different covenants God made with man, but let's focus on three. First, there is a covenant with Abraham. The promise is that God will raise up a chosen people from Abraham's seed (descendants). Abraham's great-grandson Joseph ends up in Egypt, 2nd in command to Pharaoh, and the Hebrews live fruitfully and multiply into the millions.

Then the Egyptians turn against the Jews, enslave them, and then comes Moses who leads them out of Egypt (the Exodus). God gives Moses a set of laws for the people of Israel and establishes a covenant with them. "I will be your God, you will be my people.." One of the laws given was to commemorate the Exodus, starting with the final act that broke the will of Pharaoh, which was the killing of the firstborn in every house that was not marked with the blood of the lamb. This "passing over" by the angel of death sent by God is remembered in the feast of the Passover.

Then comes Jesus. He comes to fulfill the prophecies of him given by God to the prophets. One of those prophecies is Malachi's, which was about 400 years before Jesus was born. God, speaking through Malachi, says that the Jews will profane the sacrifice and will no longer get to offer it, instead God will accept the more pure sacrifice of the Gentiles who offer incense, praise His name, etc. Jesus is the "new and everlasting" covenant, meaning His covenant will last forever, we won't have another Abraham, chosen people, etc.

Every covenant made, even between men of that time, was accompanied by a sacrifice and almost always part of that sacrifice was eaten by those making the covenant. In the case of this new and everlasting covenant, Jesus' death on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice that sealed that new covenant. Just prior to that sacrifice, on the eve of the Passover feast, Jesus ate a Passover meal with his disciples and at that meal established a permanent memorial to the sacrifice He was about to make the following day. That memorial is the Eucharist, but it is unlike any other memorial in that it sort of works backward AND forward at that same time.

Huh?

Well it does. It works backward in this sense; all of the animal sacrifices made by the Jews up to that point were made with the blood of the animal. It was not lamb's blood that fulfilled anything. Those sacrifices were symbolic of the blood of a Messiah who was yet to come. It was the Messiah's blood that was going to pay the real price of all their sins. When Jesus gave Himself on the cross, all the debt of those animal sacrifices was paid.

Now into the future: We don't offer animal sacrifices anymore because we don't need a symbol of something that already happened. What we do is participate in the Eucharistic celebration, which is that memorial that Jesus established (do this in memory of Me). That bread and wine is not mere symbol; when consecrated by the priest it becomes the body and blood of Jesus, Him really present in it. We commemorate and participate in His sacrifice for us. This is what He commanded as "the" memorial of the sacrifice of this new and everlasting covenant.

God's will was for the Jews to be the chosen people that would bring the Messiah into the world. They also rejected Him, and this final and everlasting sacrifice was so that all men could come to God, Jew or Gentile. This doesn't negate the Jews being a chosen people, for they fulfilled their role in God's divine plan for mankind. But as part of that new covenant, we celebrate something different and more profound than an escape with death and a mass exodus from slavery. We celebrate an escape from the slavery of sin and a mass exodus from eternal death.

So we no longer celebrate an event that really is not a direct part of our heritage. Jews, to whom it is a part of their heritage, do continue to celebrate Passover.

[JacobG]

DOShea wrote:

Why did Jesus allow all those believers to walk away full of misunderstanding if what you say is true? He certainly knew they were put off by the idea of eating "real flesh," and could have corrected their misunderstanding. Perhaps He didn't correct them because they understood Him correctly?

Look at the writings of the early Church Fathers, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation Christians and you will see people who got the faith directly from the Apostles or disciples of the Apostles, and you find them speaking of the Eucharist as a sacrifice and affirming the Real Presence. Why would they be doing the same thing we do today if Christ meant something else? The Apostles would have known, and surely didn't go out and found churches teaching something different than was taught to them by Jesus.

In John 6:51-59 Jesus is speaking figuratively. He never intended that they eat His flesh or drink His blood in the literal sense, but that they “partake” of His death in order to gain life. He had made the transition from literal to figurative when He compared Himself to the manna their forefathers had eaten in the desert in verses 48-49. The manna had sustained their forefathers’ temporal lives, but He would sustain their eternal lives. In the literal sense all of His followers died, just as those in the wilderness had, so He had to be speaking figuratively.

If Jesus was speaking literally, He would have been counseling His followers to break the Law, something He couldn’t do. Even the ingestion of animal blood was forbidden, how much more so human blood. (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:12)

Second, there’s simply no evidence at all that the early church read this passage literally, but instead saw it as looking forward to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, where bread symbolizes His body, and wine His blood. The idea of the Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ came into the Catholic Church several hundred years later at the Council of Trent. For every 3 church fathers we find supporting the Real Presence," we can find 3 more who didn't. Thus they are not a reliable source for doctrine.

It is clear in the New Testament that all Christians take part of Jesus' command to remember what He had done for the sake of mankind, by breaking of the bread and the drinking of wine. However, the Roman Catholic Church holds back the cup from the people, therefore only serving half of what was commanded.

Roman Catholicism teaches transubstantiation as a doctrine necessary for salvation, since this concept was not heard of prior to the 9th century, did the Apostles and disciples miss out on their salvation?

The roman catholic mass is a sacrifice, a re- presentation of the one at Calvary. Yet the Last Supper in the Bible happened before Christ died on the cross. So its a memorial, it looks back, not forward to our Savior's death.

Nowhere in The Bible is the Lord's Supper called a sacrifice. The apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 said the Lord's Supper is a memorial.

[DOShea]

If Jesus was speaking literally, He would have been counseling His followers to break the Law, something He couldn’t do. Even the ingestion of animal blood was forbidden, how much more so human blood. (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:12)

Well as I pointed out, his followers certainly did NOT take this as a figurative thing, but a literal thing, and thought of it as you are, as a form of forbidden cannibalism. It is not that, for it is not human flesh and blood Jesus is speaking of, but His supernatural flesh and blood.

Second, there’s simply no evidence at all that the early church read this passage literally, but instead saw it as looking forward to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, where bread symbolizes His body, and wine His blood.

For one, the Apostles had no idea this was going to come up in the last supper, they didn't even know it was a last supper AT the last supper. I would refer you to the writings of the early church fathers, particularly Justin Martyr's First Apology, sections 65 - 67. This is a letter to the Emperor Tiberius who wrote to him asking what is going on in these secret Christian rituals. He'd heard rumors of pagan sacrifices, cannibalism, etc. and Justin writes this apology back to Tiberius to explain what's going on at Mass. Excerpts below.

66.And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

67. And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. ButSunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

He's describing a Catholic Mass. Prayers, readings, homily, eucharistic prayer, communion, etc. And this is during the time St. John the Apostle is still alive.

The idea of the Transubstantiation of bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ came into the Catholic Church several hundred years later at the Council of Trent. For every 3 church fathers we find supporting the Real Presence," we can find 3 more who didn't. Thus they are not a reliable source for doctrine.

List 3 who didn't.

That is when it was defined specifically; it does not mean it was not believed prior to that.

However, the Roman Catholic Church holds back the cup from the people, therefore only serving half of what was commanded.

That's because they teach that Jesus if fully present body, blood, soul, and divinity in either form (bread or wine). One does not need both forms to fully receive Him.

Roman Catholicism teaches transubstantiation as a doctrine necessary for salvation, since this concept was not heard of prior to the 9th century

See above. Yes, no one walked around saying "transubstantiation," but they all did believe as Justin Martyr's letter shows that they were receiving the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. They weren't defining "how" it happened, they just believed it did. The "how" would come later.

[joe370]

Charlotte, you said:

I'm having a, well its getting heated, conversation with another guy and I have these questions:

1. He says I'm wrong, the Catholic church was NOT the first original church established by Christ, and he refers to: Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

His religion is called World Mission Society Church of God, and...for some reason he keeps going into the 'God the Mother', who, is NOT Mary...still dont know where thats going....but can someone please help me cite where in the bible it says that the Catholic church is the church he founded?



I will try to get to each one in a timely manner. First, ask him to give you the name of the protestant church that was the first original church established by Christ. I will be curious to here his answer.


Then, tell him: Jesus' church was simply called "the Church," until the close of the first century, when, out of necessity she adopted the name "catholic" to distinguish her from heretical movements claiming to be the true apostolic church, built by Jesus. and there was only one for 1500 years. In that early time there weren't any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of "the church" and from which the church might ever have to distinguish herself. However, very early in post-apostolic times, the church did acquire a proper name--and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies, which by then were already beginning to form. The name that "the Church" acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since - the Catholic Church; this is a historical fact. The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.

Around the year A.D. 107, the bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter written by St. Ignatius, he wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna, which is present day Turkey. He made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote: "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church." (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2) Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use. Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp," bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp "remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world." We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of "the whole Catholic Church throughout the world." The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.


The term "catholic" simply means "universal," and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already "everywhere," as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church. The idea of an invisible church would have been foreign to the Christians of his day. The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her. Once again, it was already understood that the Church was "catholic" because -- to adopt a modern expression -- she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be "universal" in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that "the powers of death shall not prevail." against her (Mt 16:18)

[Charlotte408]

aw you wrote that so pretty...that was very interesting and informative, thank you!

To the question, that you said to ask about 'what the name of the first church was' he said it was church of God, and referred to the peice that I quoted at the top...and his church is the Society of the church of God or somethin' er other...so I'm sure he's going to try to make a connection..idkthough...I think I scared him off!! LOL...seriously he hasn't come by...

I do have another question, though if you dont mind me asking..for myself..and please, I dont know if its a dumb question...just bear with me..

I always thouuuught, that, the romans killed jesus..rfight? Like, Jesus was a jew..right..and..I thought he was crucified for sedition, that is rebellion against Rome.

ok so if the romans are the ones who killed Jesus, then...isnt the term 'Roman' catholic...idk..lol..just kinda wrong???!?

I'm sorry if thats a dumb question and if I'm wrong please PLEASE correct me I LOVE learning about this stuff....

[TheDoctor]

Originally Posted by Charlotte408

I always thouuuught, that, the romans killed jesus..rfight? Like, Jesus was a jew..right..and..I thought he was crucified for sedition, that is rebellion against Rome.

ok so if the romans are the ones who killed Jesus, then...isnt the term 'Roman' catholic...idk..lol..just kinda wrong???!?

I'm sorry if thats a dumb question and if I'm wrong please PLEASE correct me I LOVE learning about this stuff....

It's not a dumb question and the reasons can get complicated. Let's try to do it simply:

- Jesus was physically killed by the Roman government (which was was ruling Jerusalem after conquering it) at the request of the Jewish leaders.
- The charge leveled against him by the Jews was that he was claiming to be God, a capital crime at the time.
- The Jews could not execute Jesus themselves, because as a conquered people they were subject to Roman rule and were not allowed to do this.
- The thinking was that even though Pilate found no real guilt in Jesus, he had him killed to placate the Jews and prevent a riot during the passover when there was such a huge number of Jews in the city (as governor it would look bad on Pilate's resume if he lost control of the city and had to call to Rome for reinforcements),

So yes, the Roman government killed Jesus. In a wonderful example of the power of God, the seat of the former Roman government has become the seat of the Church. We are sometimes referred to as "Roman Catholics" because the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

Hope that helps.

P.S. - if you have other questions, it is best to take them to a new thread.