st Michael: the protecting angel

Chronological Order of Salvation History

2008-01-08T21:30:00.000-08:00

Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins give a great audio Bible Study for the Bible student who wants to learn the BIG PICTURE of Salvation History.
Click here for the audio introduction or click below for the web page for the complete Audio Bible Study...

http://www.fisheaters.com/biblestudy.html

Genesis
Exodus
Numbers
Joshua
Judges
I Samuel
II Samuel
I Kings
II Kings
Ezra
Nehemiah
I Maccabees
Luke
Acts

The Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist

2007-12-24T10:26:00.000-08:00

I found the below paper on the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist at:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist.html

I believe it holds a great outline of the Catholic Position.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

The Catholic Church teaches that when a priest repeats the words of Christ at the Last Supper over bread and wine that these become truly the Body and Blood of the Lord, even though the appearance of the bread and wine remain. In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that the celebration of the Eucharist renews in an unbloody manner the Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary, forming a unity with it. How can Catholics, who in every other way appear sane, hold these outrageous beliefs that utterly defy ordinary human sense? Moreover, how can Catholics maintain, in the light of Sacred Scripture, that these beliefs are the genuine teaching of Jesus as transmitted through the Apostles and held by Christians since the earliest days?

This article explores the scriptural basis of the Catholic claim that Jesus himself taught these things, as seen in the pages of Sacred Scripture. Further, this article examines the writings of early Christians to see what they believed and praticed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earliest Written Account of the Last Supper

1 Corinthians 11

18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,
19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
20 When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which 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 Lord's death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--
34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home--lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

cf. Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-23

This is the first written account of the Last Supper, being recorded in the year 57. Note particularly verses 27, 29; they indicate that the body of the Lord is truly present. Also note that verse 25 records our Lord's commandment to perpetuate the Eucharist, hence the need for the sacramental priesthood.

In verse 27, St. Paul points out that one commits a serious sin when he receives our Lord in the Eucharist while in a state of serious sin. This is why the Church teaches that we should confess any serious sins before receiving the Eucharist.

About this account of the Last Supper, the St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catecheses (c. 350 A.D.) says

Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question and say that it is not his blood?

Therefore, is is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us under the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and one blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.

Some Christians take umbrage at the Catholic Church's use of transubstantiation to describe the mystery of the Real Presence. They claim that this fancy word along with, what is to them, the fancy (descriptive) explanation, needlessly complicate the teaching of the Gospel with philosophy. What they are missing is that philosophy just helps us to refine our common-sense notions, and so to improve our understanding and expression of the Truth.

The truth is that this big word transubstantiation is a high fence to protect what has always been the Church's teaching on the Eucharist: that when Christ said 'This is my body,' he meant is in the usual way that we mean is, and that just because our senses tell us that this is still bread, doesn't detract from the words of Christ who is God, but rather from the evidence of our senses.

For comparison, when we say that a tree is a tree, we mean that the substance of this object is tree. If I chop down the tree and build a chair. I now say, 'This is a chair'-- the substance of the tree has become chair. The chair is a chair no matter what my eyes or sense of touch tell me: the chair is still a chair when in the dark when we can't see it or when it is covered by a stiff, opaque cloth.

The importance of the clarity of the Church's teaching on the Real Presence as expressed by the term transubstantiation became evident in the sixteenth century when the Reformers rejected it. Luther, who, unlike Calvin and his disciples, was not utterly blind to the clear meaning of the words of Sacred Scripture (cf. John 6 below), tried to preserve belief in the Real Presence while distancing himself from the Roman Catholic Church's teaching of transubstantiation. So he taught what we call consubstantiation: that the body and blood of Christ are present along with the bread and the wine.

The problem with this explanation is that it postulates an entirely new manner of being and says that Christ had to be using is in a way much different from the way we normally use the word, so that when he said, 'This is my body,' he really meant, 'This is my body (along with the bread which is still here too).' The real obscenity of this explanation is that Luther then has the temerity to complain about Catholics complicating the Gospel!

And if Luther twisted words in knots to avoid transubstantiation, much more did the other Reformers in entirely rejecting the Real Presence as clearly taught by Christ in the following passage of Sacred Scripture.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus Foretells the Insitution and Meaning of the Eucharist

John 6

25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?"
26 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves.
27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal."
28 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?"
29 Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."
30 So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform?
31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world."
34 They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always."
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;
39 and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven."
42 They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
43 Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among yourselves.
44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.
46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 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;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58 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."
59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper'na-um.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"
68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."
70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?"
71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.

Verses 26 and 63 frame the whole discourse with the crowd. The reason they do not believe the great teaching he is about to reveal is that their vision is too earthly: ``Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.'' (Philippians 3:18,19). In the words of St. Paul:

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. (Romans 8:5)

The crowd cannot see the divinity of Jesus because they are impure and seek their own gratification: ``Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.'' (Matthew 5:8). In verse 40, he tells us that we must see the Son of man and have faith in him in order to gain eternal life. How is it that we modern-day disciples can see Jesus? Only through a pure act of faith: 'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe' (Jn 20:29).

In verses 45-46, he as much as says that his authority is divine, as if to remind the crowd that though the teaching is difficult, the authority of the one who reveals it admits of no doubt. In verse 47 he says solemnly ``he who believes has eternal life''. But believes what? What is the content of this belief? It can only be the teaching that follows in verses 48-51: ``I am the bread of life.... if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.''

Notice that the crowds clearly understand him to say that to live they must eat his flesh (v. 52), and, although they understand him in a carnal way (not seeing that his flesh will be veiled under the appearance of bread and wine), they grasp the basic truth of his words. The proof is that he does not try to correct them as if they had misunderstood, but rather reiterates and amplifies what they have understood from his saying in verse 51. Notice with what solemnity (``Truly, truly...'') and how many times he reaffirms this teaching (vv. 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58). Each of these verses is a categorical affirmation of the crowd's understanding of his words. There is no indication that Jesus is speaking figuratively here; we must humbly accept the words of our Lord, even though if it require a great leap of faith. We must not allow our predispositions or traditions or even the purely empirical knowledge of our own senses to restrict our full recognition of the truth given from the mouth of God made Man: ``Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.'' (John 20:29) We must humbly ask God for the faith to believe in this truth beyond all expectation, tradition and sense. ``Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.'' (Mark 10:16)

Some interpret verse 63 to mean that the flesh about which Jesus has just been speaking does not contribute to salvation. The problem with this interpretation is that it denies the role of the Incarnation in our salvation: if Jesus' flesh is not beneficial to our salvation, why did he become a man and sacrifice himself? The correct interpretation is, as we have already noted, that `flesh' refers to the senses and the mind enslaved to the senses. Jesus is saying, `Don't judge by your senses; judge by the Spirit: have faith in me!' Besides, as St. Thomas Aquinas points out, Jesus gives us in the Holy Eucharist not just his body, but also his blood, soul, and divinity; Jesus died only once and these can never be separated from his body again.

Significantly, St. John has told us that the events of the previous episode take place just under a year before Jesus institutes the Sacrament of his Love at the Last Supper: "Now, the Passover, the Feast of the Jews, was at hand." (verse 4, not shown above). The present episode occurs on the Passover, a year before Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Verse 66 tells us that many of Jesus' disciples (not just an stray crowd, but his disciples) withdrew from following him because they understood his words literally and took offense. If Jesus had intended his words symbolically, he would have been morally obliged to clarify them for his misunderstanding disciples. But he does not do so.

Finally, notice that this is the first time St. John mentions that Judas is going to betray Jesus (v. 71), that it immediately follows many of Jesus's disciples falling away from him due to the apparent enormity of the idea of eating his flesh and drinking his blood (v. 60). In verse 64, St. John makes the connection between betrayal of Jesus and unbelief in what he has just taught. Here we learn that it was Judas' failure to believe the Lord in preference to sense evidence that started him on the road to perdition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Eucharist as a Sacrifice

1 Corinthians 10

14 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.
15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
18 Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Note that some translations have ``communion'' in place of ``participation'' in verse 16. Notice also (v. 17) that the Eucharist is the bond that joins Christians as well as being a symbol of their unity. This agrees with the description of the first Christians in Acts 2:42, which implies that the eucharist was a cause of their unity: ``And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.''

Notice how St. Paul draws a parallel pagan sacrifices and the Eucharist; the former is offered to demons, the latter to God: ``By eating the meat of animals offered to Yahweh, Jews participated in the sacrifice and worship in his honour; and by receiving the body and blood of the Lord, Christians unite themselves to Christ; similarly, those who take part in idolatrous banquets are associating themselves not with false gods--which have no existence-- but with demons.'' (Navarre Bible, commentary on vv. 14-22) Thus, the Eucharist is a sacrifice to God.

This teaching of St. Paul also brings out the full meaning of chapter seven of the Letter to the Hebrews, in which Christ is called ``a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek'' (cf. Psalm 110:4). Melchizedek offered bread and wine as his sacrifice to God (Genesis 14:17-20), a sacrifice which foreshadowed Jesus' own sacrifice. For Christians, the Holy Eucharist is the unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary. It is not a new sacrifice, but a continuation of our Lord's self-immolation, which transcends all time and place. In communion, a Christian receives our Lord and also offers himself to the Lord: it is an exchange of persons. To the early Christians this exchange must have been painfully obvious, since their participation in the Eucharistic feast implied their willingness to confess Christ even to death.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Did the Earlist Christians Believe?

Why should we care what Christians in earlier ages believed? For one, the unity of the Christ's Church extends not only throughout the world, but throughout time. These truths have been handed down to us in Scripture, but also in the other writings of the first Christians, some of whom knew the Apostles personally. If these first Christians had incorrect doctrine, then they must have learned it wrong from the Apostles. Since our faith comes to us from the Apostles, Sacred Scripture can only be as correct as they are.

Let us examine what the earliest Christians writers have said about the real presence.

circa 110 A.D.: St. Ignatius of Antioch

Letter to the Romans 7,3

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.

Letter to the Philadephians 3,3 - 4

Do not err, my brethren,: if anyone follow a schismatic he will not inherit the kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care then to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.

Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7

From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.

circa 150 A.D.: St. Justin Martyr,

First Apology, 66
St. Justin is talking about the Mass, and he has described the consecration and communion. Then he says

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins annd for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor as common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our flesh and blood is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus.

Second Apology, 41

"And the offering of fine flour, sirs," I said, "which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing(4) principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before,(5) about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it.'(6) [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first(7) of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first.

circa 165 A.D.: St. Irenaeus of Lyons

Adversus Haereses Book 4, ch. 18, s. 5

Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned.(4) But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit.(5) For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread,(6) but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

Adversus Haereses Book 5, ch. 2, ss. 2-3

2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body.(1) For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins."(2) And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills(3)). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.(4)

3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made,(5) from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?--even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones."(6) He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh;(7) but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,--that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption,(8) because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness,(9) in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. And might it not be the case, perhaps, as I have already observed, that for this purpose God permitted our resolution into the common dust of mortality,(10) that we, being instructed by every mode, may be accurate in all things for the future, being ignorant neither of God nor of ourselves?

circa 350 A.D.: St. Cyril of Jerusalem

Catecheses, Lecture 22, ss. 1,3-6,9
(cf. Lecture 19, s. 7; Lecture 23, ss. 20-23)

On the night he was betrayed out Lord Jesus Christ took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: ``Take, eat: this is my body.'' He took the cup, gave thanks and said: ``Take, drink: this is my blood.'' Since Christ himself has declared the bread to be his body, who can have any further doubt? Since he himself has said quite categorically, This is my blood, who would dare to question and say that it is not his blood?

Therefore, is is with complete assurance that we receive the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ. His body is given to us under the symbol of bread, and his blood is given to us udner the symbol of wine, in order to make us by receiving them one body and one blood with him. Having his body and blood in our members, we become bearers of Christ and sharers, as Saint Peter says, in the divine nature.

Once, when speaking to the Jews, Christ said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you. This horrified them and they left him. Not understandoing his words ina spiritual way, they thought the Savior wished them to practice cannibalism.

Under the old dispensation there was showbread, but it came to an end with the old dispensation to which it belonged. Under the new covenant there is bread from heaven and the cup of salvation. These sanctify both soul and body, the bread being adapted to the sanctification of the body, the Word, to the sanctification of the soul.

Do not, then, regard the eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith.

You have been taught and you are firmly convinced that what looks and tastes like bread and wine is not bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. You know also how David referred to this long ago when he sang: Bread gives strength to man's heart and makes his face shine with the oil of gladness. Strengthen your heart, then, by receiving this bread as spriritual bread, and bring joy to the face of your soul.

May purity of conscience remove the veil from the face of your soul so that by contemplating the glory of the Lord, as in a mirror, you may be transformed from glory to glory in Christ Jesus our Lord. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

circa 390 A.D.: St. John Chrysostrom,

Homily 46 (commenting on John 6)

Therefore, in order that we may become of His Body, not in desire only, but also in very fact, let us become commingled with that Body. This, in truth, takes place by means of the food which He has given us as a gift, because He desire to prove the love which He has for us. It is for this reason that He shared Himself with us and has brought His Body down to our level, namely, that we might be one with Him as the body is joined with the head. This, in truth is characteristic of those who greatly love. Job, indeed, was implying this when he said of his servants--by whom he was loved with such an excess of love--that they desired to cleave to his flesh. In giving expression to the great love which they possessed, they said: `Who will give us of his flesh that we may be filled?' Moreover, Christ has done even this to spur us on to even greater love. And to show the love He has for us He has made it possible for those who desire, not merely to look upon Him, but even to touch Him and to consume Him and to fix their teeth in His Flesh and to be commingled with Him; in short, to fulfill all their love. Let us, then, come back from that table like lions breathing out fire, thus becoming terrifying to the Devil, and remaining mindful of our Head and of the love which He has shown for us.

A more extensive list of early Christian writings on this topic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

Belief in the Real Presence is a universal and perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, that is to say, she has taught it everywhere and always, from her birth from the pierce side of our Lord down to the present day. No Christian denied it in the first millennium. Only in the eleventh century did anyone at all deny it. The Church immediately responded by reaffirming the perennial teaching by defending what she had received from the Lord. It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation fifteen centuries after Christ's death that rejection of the Real Presence gained a following of any significance. The Holy Spirit has protected the majority of the world's believers (Catholics and Orthodox) from error in this matter. (It is also worthwhile noting that not all Protestants deny the Real Presence.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©The Augustine Club at Columbia University, 1996

augustine@columbia.edu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modification
Draft 1995 (John Keck)
some quotations from the Fathers contributed (Claudio J. Urbano)
other references from Fr. John Waiss
first version: December 1995
last modified: July 1, 1999

Hail Mary

2007-11-17T19:01:00.000-08:00

A recent conversation with co-workers provided me with an opportunity to explain that the Hail Mary pray is almost directly from Scripture...

I said if you read scripture you have said the Hail Mary...

http://www.catholictradition.org/main-index.htm

Below is the scripture verses used in the Hail Mary and the prayer...

"Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
Luke 1:28

"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!"
Luke 1:42

"mother of our Lord"
Luke 1:43

"pray for us"
1 Thessalonians 5:25

Hail Mary full of grace. The Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary mother of God,
pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen!

My Lexicon

2007-10-21T18:17:00.000-07:00

Faith
-- Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed (CCC 150).

Hope
-- Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit (CCC 1817).

Love
-- God is Love (1 John 4:8); Love is the fullfillment of the Law (Romans 13:10); "I [Jesus] have come not to abolish but to fulfill [the Law] (Matthew 5:17).

My Personal "Selected" Bibliography

2007-08-09T10:52:00.000-07:00

Below is a list of books (readings) that have contributed to my understanding of the Catholic Faith. I have read many protestant books as well but only "selected" the books I believe will help form a good understanding of the Catholic Faith. I plan on updating this list as I continue to learn and read. I have attempted to attach links to the books or papers for any who wish to locate and read for themselves.

Rocommended Book Store & Other Catholic Stuff...

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/

Books, Papers and References

Bettenson, Henry. Documents of the Christian Church
Brown, Raymond.
-- Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Murphy, Roland E. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary
-- An Introdocution to The New Testament
Catholic Church.
-- The Bible (New American Bible)
-- Catechism of the Catholic Church
-- Catechism of the Catholic Church: Compendium
-- Code of Canon Law
-- Dei Verbum - Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation
-- The Liturgy Of The Hours (four volume set)
-- Lumen Gentium - Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
-- Nostra Aetate - Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
-- Redemptionis Sacramentum
-- Rosarium Virginis Mariae - On The Most Holy Rosary
Currie, David. Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic
Hahn, Scott.
-- A Father Who Keeps His Promises
-- Hail, Holy Queen
-- Lamb's Supper - The Mass as Heaven on Earth
-- Letter and Spirit - From Written Text to Living Word in the Liturgy
-- Lord Have Mercy - The Healing Power of Confession
Hahn, Scott & Kimbery. Rome Sweet Home
Idigoras, Fr. Jose Ignacio Tellechea. Ignatius Of Loyola - The Pilgrim Saint
Kempis, Thomas A. The Imitation of Christ
Klein, Rev Peter. The Catholic Source Book
Kreeft, Peter.
-- Catholic Christianity
-- Tacelli, Ronald K. Handbook of Christian Apologetics
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity
Madrid, Patrick.
-- Where is THAT in the Bible?
--Pope Fiction
-- Surprised by Truth
Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus of Nazareth
Pope John Paul II. Crossing the Threshold of Hope
Schreck, Dr. Allen. Compact History of the Catholic Church
Socias, Rev. James (editor). Daily Roman Missal

Web Sites

http://www.catholic.com/ - Catholic Answers
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html - Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ - Fathers of the Church
http://www.usccb.org/ - United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm - Vatican (English)

Scripture in the Order of Mass

2007-05-20T13:20:00.000-07:00

Many of my discussions with non-Catholics who profess the "bible alone" creed have claimed the Catholic Church needs to get back to the Bible as if us Catholic do not read the Bible.

I have found websites and books of fellow Catholics who have provided a summary of the words that are said during a typical Mass.

Below is my summary using the information I have found and my experience at Mass.

I challenge any "bible alone" Christian to attend a service that proclaims Holy Scripture more than a Catholic Mass.

Greeting:

Priest:
In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
(Matthew 28:19)

People:
Amen
(1 Chronicles 16:36)

Priest:
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
(2 Corinthians 13:13)

People:
And also with you.

Penitential Rite:

All:
I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault.
(James. 5:16)

In my thoughts and in my words,
(Romans 12:16)

In what I have done and what I have failed to do;
(James 3:6)

and I ask the Blessed Virgin Mary, all the angel and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
(1 Thessalonians 5:25)

Priest:
May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life. (1 John 1:9)

People:
Amen (1 Chronicles 16:36)

All:
Lord have mercy. (Tobit 8:4)
Christ have mercy. (1 Timothy 1:2)
Lord have mercy. (Tobit 8:4)

Gloria:

All:
Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. (Luke 2:14)
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, (Revelation 19:6)
we worship you, (Rev. 22:9)
we give you thanks, (Ephesians. 5:20)
we praise you for your glory. (Revelation 7:12)
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, (2 John 3)
Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us; (John 1:29)
You are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer. (Romans 8:34)
For you alone are the Holy One, (Luke 4:34)
You alone are Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ. (Luke 1:32)
with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. (John 14:26)

The Liturgy of the Word

Today's Reading

First Reading (Typically from the Old Testament)
Psalms (one of the Psalms either put into song or sung by a cantor)
Second Reading (one of the epistles of the New Testament follows the Psalm)
Third Reading (one of the four Gospels)
Homily (Sermon on the readings)

Profession of Faith:

All:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, (Genesis 14:19)
of all that is seen and unseen. (Colosians 1:16)
We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, (Luke 1:35)
eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. (Hebrews 1:3)
Through him all things were made. (John 1:2-3)
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: (John 3:13)
by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, (Matthew 1:18)
and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:16)
he suffered, died and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
He ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51)
and is seated at the right hand of the Father. (Colosians 3:1)
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead (2 Timothy 4:1)
and his kingdom will have no end. (Luke 1:33)
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, (Acts 2:17)
who proceeds from the Father and the Son. (John 14:16)
With the Father and Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. (1 Peter 1:10-11)
We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. (Romans 12:5)
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. (Acts 2:38)
We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. (Romans 6:5)
Amen

Liturgy of the Eucharist:

Priest:
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. (Ecclesiastes 3:13)
It will become for us the bread of life. (John 6:35)

People:
Blessed be God forever. (Psalms 68:36)

Priest:
Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink. (Luke 22:17-18)

People:
Blessed be God forever. (Psalms 68:36)

Priest:
Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father. (Hebrews 12:28)

People:
May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our sake and the good of all his Church. (Psalms 50:23)

Eucharistic Prayers:

Priest:
Lift up your hearts.

People:
We lift them up to the Lord. (Lamentations 3:41)

Priest:
Let us give thanks to the Lord Our God. (Colosians 3:17)

People:
It is right to give him thanks and praise. (Colosians 1:3)

Preface acclamation:

All:
Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. (Isaiah 6:3)
Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. (Mark 11:9-10)

Eucharistic prayer:

Priest:
Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. (2 Maccabees 14:36)
Let your spirit come upon these gifts (water and wine) to make them holy, so that they may become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Before he was given up to death, (Philippians 2:8)
a death he freely accepted, (John 10:17-18)
he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this is memory of me. (Mark 14:22-25)
Let us proclaim the mystery of faith.

All:
Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life, Lord Jesus, come in glory. (Hebrews 2:14-15)

Priest:
In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. (John 6:51)
We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians10:17)
Lord, remember your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love together with our Pope and our bishop, and all the clergy. Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again: bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence. (2 Maccabees 12:45-46)
Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory though your Son, Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:4-5)
Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever. (Romans 11:36)

All:
Amen. (Romans 11:36)

Communion Rite:

The Lord’s Prayer:

All:
Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. (Matthew 6:9-13)

Priest:
Deliver us, Lord, from every evil and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our savior, Jesus Christ. (John 17:15)

All:
For the kingdom the power and the glory are yours, now and forever. Amen

Priest:
Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles; I leave you peace, my peace I give to you. (John 14:27)
Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and grant us the peace and unity of your kingdom where you live forever and ever.

Priest:
The peace of the Lord be with you always! (John 20:19)

People:
And also with you!

Breaking of the Bread:

All:
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace. (John 1:29)

Communion:

Priest:
This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper. (Revevlation 19:9)

People:
Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. (Matthew 8:8)

Dismissal:

Priest:
Blessed be the name of the Lord. Now and forever. (Daniel 2:20)
May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:51)
Go in peace (Luke 7:50)
to love and serve the Lord. (2 Chronicles 35:3)

People:
Thanks be to God. (2 Corinthians 9:15)

Purgatory

2007-05-16T20:42:00.000-07:00

I have had several discussions that have drifted into a Purgatory debate…

I have taken upon myself to extract the documents that I have read and websites that I know are good Catholic sites to provide the average person who wants to know the correct understanding of Purgatory…

I hope this will help people to accept or reject the correct understanding of Purgatory, instead of rejecting purgatory on the basis of incorrect understanding of what purgatory actually is…

Sadly I have found many people (Catholic and non-Catholic) do not fully understand what Purgatory is… they grab a dictionary and easily see it says a “place” or “state”. This understanding is a very limited thought on purgatory and does not give the truth of purgatory justice.

My main goal with this post is to provide good Catholic documents for an honest person to read and decide rightly if they agree or not with Purgatory…

I understand that Purgatory is not a place... but a process... let us see if Catholic documents support this understanding?

In a speech John Paul II clearly teaches that Purgatory is not a place...

"The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence." - (John Paul II)

Let us begin with a prayer..

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy. Amen!

* * * * * * *

For those who want official Catholic Doctrine, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the best.

The Catechism can be described as the Catholic Commentary of Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition...

Holy Scriptures

1 Corinthians 3:11–15
for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, 8 but only as through fire.

Matthew 5:25–26
Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.

Matthew 12:31–32
Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

2 Maccabees 12:41–46
They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.606

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."607 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.608 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our
prayers for them.609

The Roots of Purgatory

All Christians agree that we won’t be sinning in heaven. Sin and final glorification are utterly incompatible. Therefore, between the sinfulness of this life and the glories of heaven, we must be made pure. Between death and glory there is a purification.

Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned" (CCC 1030–1).

The concept of an after-death purification from sin and the consequences of sin is also stated in the New Testament in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 and Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–2.

The doctrine of purgatory, or the final purification, has been part of the true faith since before the time of Christ.

The Jews already believed it before the coming of the Messiah, as revealed in the Old Testament (2 Macc. 12:41–45) as well as in other pre-Christian Jewish works, such as one which records that Adam will be in mourning "until the day of dispensing punishment in the last years, when I will turn his sorrow into joy" (The Life of Adam and Eve 46–7).

Orthodox Jews to this day believe in the final purification, and for eleven months after the death of a loved one, they pray a prayer called the Mourner’s Kaddish for their loved one’s purification.

Jews, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox have always historically proclaimed the reality of the final purification. It was not until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century that anyone denied this doctrine. As the quotes below from the early Church Fathers show, purgatory has been part of the Christian faith from the very beginning. Some imagine that the Catholic Church has an elaborate doctrine of purgatory worked out, but there are only three essential components of the doctrine:

1. that a purification after death exists
2. that it involves some kind of pain
3. that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God

Other ideas, such that purgatory is a particular "place" in the afterlife or that it takes time to accomplish, are speculations rather than doctrines.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla
And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’" (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).

Abercius
The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste Shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed: Truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius" (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]).

The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity
[T]hat very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I [Perpetua] saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease...For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other...and [i] knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then...I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Din crates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment...[And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment" (The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3–4 [A.D. 202]).

Tertullian
We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]" (The Crown 3:3 [A.D.211]).

A woman, after the death of her husband...prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice" (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).

Cyprian of Carthage
The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace [i.e., reconciliation] is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord" (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out" (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).

Gregory of Nyssa
If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire" (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).

John Chrysostom
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of very means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf" (Homilies on Philippians 3:9–10 [A.D. 402]).

Augustine
There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death" (ibid., 172:2).

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment" (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death" (ibid., 29:109).

John Paul II

GENERAL AUDIENCE Speech Aug 4, 1999

1. As we have seen in the previous two catecheses, on the basis of the definitive option for or against God, the human being finds he faces one of these alternatives: either to live with the Lord in eternal beatitude, or to remain far from his presence.For those who find themselves in a condition of being open to God, but still imperfectly, the journey towards full beatitude requires a purification, which the faith of the Church illustrates in the doctrine of 'Purgatory' (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1030-1032).

2. In Sacred Scripture, we can grasp certain elements that help us to understand the meaning of this doctrine, even if it is not formally described. They express the belief that we cannot approach God without undergoing some kind of purification.According to Old Testament religious law, what is destined for God must be perfect. As a result, physical integrity is also specifically required for the realities which come into contact with God at the sacrificial level such as, for example, sacrificial animals (cf. Lv 22:22) or at the institutional level, as in the case of priests or ministers of worship (cf. Lv 21:17-23). Total dedication to the God of the Covenant, along the lines of the great teachings found in Deuteronomy (cf. 6:5), and which must correspond to this physical integrity, is required of individuals and society as a whole (cf. 1 Kgs 8:61). It is a matter of loving God with all one's being, with purity of heart and the witness of deeds (cf. ibid., 10:12f.)The need for integrity obviously becomes nesessary after death, for entering into perfect and complete communion with God. Those who do not possess this integrity must undergo purification. This is suggested by a text of St Paul. The Apostle speaks of the value of each person's work which will be revealed on the day of judgement and says: 'If the work which any man has built on the foundation [which is Christ] survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire' (1 Cor 3:14-15).

3. At times, to reach a state of perfect integrity a person's intercession or mediation is needed. For example, Moses obtains pardon for the people with a prayer in which he recalls the saving work done by God in the past, and prays for God's fidelity to the oath made to his ancestors (cf. Ex 32:30, 11-13). The figure of the Servant of the Lord, outlined in the Book of Isaiah, is also portrayed by his role of intercession and expiation for many; at the end of his suffering he 'will see the light' and 'will justify many', bearing their iniquities (cf. Is 52:13-53, 12, especially vv. 53:11).Psalm 51 can be considered, according to the perspective of the Old Testament, as a synthesis of the process of reintegration: the sinner confesses and recognizes his guilt (v. 3), asking insistently to be purified or 'cleansed' (vv. 2, 9, 10, 17) so as to proclaim the divine praise (v. 15).

4. In the New Testament Christ is presented as the intercessor who assumes the functions of high priest on the day of expiation (cf. Heb 5:7; 7:25). But in him the priesthood is presented in a new and definitive form. He enters the heavenly shrine once and for all, to intercede with God on our behalf (cf. Heb 9:23-26, especially, v. 24). He is both priest and 'victim of expiation' for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 Jn 2:2).Jesus, as the great intercessor who atones for us, will fully reveal himself at the end of our life when he will express himself with the offer of mercy, but also with the inevitable judgement for those who refuse the Father's love and forgiveness.This offer of mercy does not exclude the duty to present ourselves to God, pure and whole, rich in that love which Paul calls a '[bond] of perfect harmony' (Col 3:14).

5. In following the Gospel exhortation to be perfect like the heavenly Father (cf. Mt 5:48) during our earthly life, we are called to grow in love, to be sound and flawless before God the Father 'at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints' (1 Thes 3:12f.). Moreover, we are invited to 'cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit' (2 Cor 7:1; cf. 1 Jn 3:3), because the encounter with God requires absolute purity.Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ who removes from them the remnants of imperfection (cf. Ecumenical Council of Florence, Decretum pro Graecis: DS 1304; Ecumenical Council of Trent, Decretum de iustificatione: DS 1580; Decretum de purgatorio: DS 1820).It is necessary to explain that the state of purification is not a prolungation of the earthly condition, almost as if after death one were given another possibility to change one's destiny. The Church's teaching in this regard is unequivocal and was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council which teaches: 'Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed (cf. Heb 9:27), we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth' (Mt 22:13 and 25:30)" (Lumen gentium, n. 48).

6. One last important aspect which the Church's tradition has always pointed out should be reproposed today: the dimension of 'communio'. Those, in fact, who find themselves in the state of purification are united both with the blessed who already enjoy the fullness of eternal life, and with us on this earth on our way towards the Father's house (cf. CCC, n. 1032).Just as in their earthly life believers are united in the one Mystical Body, so after death those who live in a state of purification experience the same ecclesial solidarity which works through prayer, prayers for suffrage and love for their other brothers and sisters in the faith. Purification is lived in the essential bond created between those who live in this world and those who enjoy eternal beatitude. * * * * * Dear Brothers and Sisters,Following our catechesis on the reality of heaven and hell, today we consider "Purgatory", the process of purification for those who die in the love of God but who are not completely imbued with that love.Sacred Scripture teaches us that we must be purified if we are to enter into perfect and complete union with God. Jesus Christ, who became the perfect expiation for our sins and took upon himself the punishment that was our due, brings us God's mercy and love. But before we enter into God's Kingdom every trace of sin within us must be eliminated, every imperfection in our soul must be corrected. This is exactly what takes place in Purgatory. Those who live in this state of purification after death are not separated from God but are immersed in the love of Christ. Neither are they separated from the saints in heaven - who already enjoy the fullness of eternal life - nor from us on earth - who continue on our pilgrim journey to the Father's house. We all remain united in the Mystical Body of Christ, and we can therefore offer up prayers and good works on behalf of our brothers and sisters in Purgatory. * * * * * I am pleased to greet the English-speaking visitors and pilgrims present at today's Audience, especially those from England, Ireland, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Japan and the United States. Upon all of you I invoke the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Happy summer holidays to you all!

The Council of Trent

The Twenty-Fifth Session

SESSION THE TWENTY-FIFTH,
Begun on the third, and terminated on the fourth, day of December, MDLXIII., being the ninth and last under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV.

DECREE CONCERNING PURGATORY.

Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, [Page 233] but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated multitude. In like manner, such things as are uncertain, or which labour under an appearance of error, let them not allow to be made public and treated of. While those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful. But let the bishops take care, that the suffrages of the faithful who are living, to wit the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which have been wont to be performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed, be piously and devoutly performed, in accordance with the institutes of the church; and that whatsoever is due on their behalf, from the endowments of testators, or in other way, be discharged, not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately, by the priests and ministers of the church, and others who are bound to render this (service).

Why Fast?

2007-04-01T19:29:00.000-07:00

During this Lenten season (2007) I have thought many times of why the need to Fast? After reading from Catholic Sources I now question why a Christian would not fast? I have learned fasting will help prayers... It can humble yourself to a point of openess to the spiritual.

The Catholic Church has some fasting guidelines to help the BODY of believers be united visibly and spiritually in prayer and fasting...

The Lenten season is known as a period of fasting...

Why do we participate in a seemingly "legalistic" approach to fasting when Scripture tell's us to fast in private?

The Church has understood the power of joining Prayer and Fasting, as noted in Holy Scripture. Fasting is not done openinly but privately... Fasting only becomes noticed when a person does not partake in something he normally would and the actions is questioned by another. A Christian then is instructed to explain his faith and the reason for his hope. He should not boast about fasting, but boast about Jesus and all he has done.

I have found the need to tell people that I am fasting only when they question me. I pray my explanation open's a possible door to explain my faith. The faith I am commanded to proclaim and "always give a reason" (1 Peter 3:15). With that being said I have provide below some sources that may help explain the Penance of Fasting...

Mark 2:18-20
And the disciples of John and the Pharisees used to fast. And they come and say to him: Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast; but thy disciples do not fast? And Jesus saith to them: Can the children of the marriage fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them: and then they shall fast in those days.

Matthew 6:16-18
And when you fast, be not as the hypocrites, sad. For they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. But thou, when thou fastest anoint thy head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not to men to fast, but to thy Father who is in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret, will repay thee.

Acts 13:2-3
And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they fasting and praying and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

Acts 14:22
And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

"When you Fast" by James Akin
Jesus does not ask us to fast so that we can benefit physically. He is not recommending it as a diet or health-improvement technique. He intends it to do something spiritual...Fasting does relate to prayer and is used in the Bible as a way of petitioning God. But the humility one expresses in fasting must be real and not affected. God castigates those who fast but do not truly repent

Ezra 8:21
And I proclaimed there a fast by the river Ahava, that we might afflict ourselves before the Lord our God, and might ask of him a right way for us and for our children, and for all our substance.

Isaiah 58:3-7
Why have we fasted, and thou hast not regarded: have we humbled our souls, and thou hast not taken notice? Behold in the day of your fast your own will is found, and you exact of all your debtors. Behold you fast for debates and strife, and strike with the fist wickedly. Do not fast as you have done until this day, to make your cry to be heard on high. Is this such a fast as I have chosen: for a man to afflict his soul for a day? is this it, to wind his head about like a circle, and to spread sackcloth and ashes? wilt thou call this a fast, and a day acceptable to the Lord? Is not this rather the fast that I have chosen? loose the bands of wickedness, undo the bundles that oppress, let them that are broken go free, and break asunder every burden. Deal thy bread to the hungry, and bring the needy and the harbourless into thy house: when thou shalt see one naked, cover him, and despise not thy own flesh.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703chap.asp

Catechism of the Catholic Church

V. THE MANY FORMS OF PENANCE IN CHRISTIAN LIFE

1434 The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving,31 which express conversion in relation to oneself, to God, and to others. Alongside the radical purification brought about by Baptism or martyrdom they cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: effort at reconciliation with one's neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one's neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity "which covers a multitude of sins."32

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm#1434

Code of Canon Law

CHAPTER II.

Days of Penance

Can. 1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

Can. 1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can. 1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4O.HTM

OFFICE OF PAPAL LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS

LITURGICAL-PASTORAL GUIDELINES
ON THE FAST AND PRAYER FOR PEACE
IN PREPARATION FOR THE ASSISI MEETING
OF 24 JANUARY 2002

1. CHRISTIAN FASTING

1.1 The Essence of Christian Fasting

Fasting has an important place in all the great religions. The Old Testament lists fasting among the corner-stones of the spirituality of Israel: "Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving and justice" (Tob 12:8).3 Fasting implies an attitude of faith, humility and complete dependence upon God. Fasting is used to prepare to meet God (cf. Ex 34:28; 1 Kgs 19:8; Dan 9:3); to prepare for a difficult task (cf. Jgs 20:26; Es 4:16) or to seek pardon for an offence (cf. 1 Kgs 21:27); to express grief in the wake of domestic or national misfortune (cf. 1 Sam 7:6; 2 Sam 1:12; Bar 1:5). Fasting, inseparable from prayer and justice, is directed above all to conversion of heart, without which – as the Prophets declared (cf. Is 58:2-11; Jer 14:12; Zech 7:5-14) – it is meaningless.

Before beginning his public mission, Jesus, driven by the Holy Spirit, fasted for forty days as an expression of his trusting abandonment to the Father’s saving plan (cf. Mt 4:1-4). He gave precise instructions to his disciples that their fasting should never be tainted by ostentation and hypocrisy (cf. Mt 6:16-18).

Following the biblical tradition, the Fathers held fasting in high esteem. In their view, the practice of fasting made the faithful ready for nourishment of another kind: the food of the Word of God (cf. Mt 4:4) and of fulfilment of the Father’s will (cf. Jn 4:34). Fasting is closely connected to prayer, it strengthens virtue, inspires mercy, implores divine assistance and leads to conversion of heart. It is in this double sense – imploring the grace of the Almighty and profound inner conversion – that we are called to accept Pope John Paul II’s invitation to fast on 14 December. For without the Lord’s help it will not be possible to find a solution to the tragic situation now facing the world, and it is hard to see how terrorism will be tackled at its roots without a conversion of hearts.

The practice of fasting looks to the past, present and future: to the past, as a recognition of offences committed against God and others; to the present, in order that we may learn to open our eyes to others and to the world around us; to the future, in order that we may open our hearts to the realities of God and, by the gift of divine mercy, renew the bond of communion with all people and with the whole of creation, accepting the responsibility which each of us has in history.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/documents/ns_lit_doc_20020124_assisi_en.html

Reflections and choices?

2007-02-24T06:27:00.000-08:00

Hello Friends & Family,

In light of our troubling times I wanted to share with you some of my thoughts on a Homily a Deacon from my parish taught, an E-mail I received from Diane (my sister-in-law) and a drawing I did a long time ago…

The Homily was the first of the three that came to my mind in recent days… Deacon Mike proceeded to teach after the readings of Holy Scripture about a young boy and his Grandfather. The young boy asked his Grandpa to tell him a story… He told the boy about the two wolves’s that lived and battled inside him…

One wolf was fear, hate, anger, jealousy, lust, laziness and bad.

The second wolf was love, peace, forgiveness, honor, trust, humility, assertiveness, encouragement and good.

At the end of the story the little boy who looked up to his Grandfather asked with all excitement. Which wolf won the battle?

The old man smiled at him and said: The one I feed!

The next story came from an email from my sister-in-law about Four wives.

Four Wives

Once upon a time there was a rich King who had four wives.

He loved the 4th wife the most and adorned her with rich robes and treated her to the finest of delicacies. He gave her nothing but the best.

He also loved the 3rd wife very much and was always showing her off to neighboring kingdoms. However, he feared that one day she would leave him for another.

He also loved his 2nd wife. She was his confident and was always kind, considerate and patient with him. Whenever the King faced a problem, he could confide in her, and she would help him get through the difficult times.

The King's 1st wife was a very loyal partner and had made great contributions in maintaining his wealth and kingdom. However, he did not love the first wife. Although she loved him deeply, he hardly took notice of her!

One day, the King fell ill and he knew his time was short. He thought of his luxurious life and wondered, "I now have four wives with me, but when I die, I'll be all alone."

Thus, he asked the 4th wife, "I have loved you the most, endowed you with the finest clothing and showered great care over you. Now that I'm dying, will you follow me and keep me company?"

"No way!", replied the 4th wife, and she walked away without another word..

Her answer cut like a sharp knife right into his heart.

The sad King then asked the 3rd wife, "I have loved you all my life. Now that I'm dying, will you follow me and keep me company?"

"No!", replied the 3rd wife. "Life is too good! When you die, I'm going to remarry!" His heart sank and turned cold.

He then asked the 2nd wife, "I have always turned to you for help and you've always been there for me. When I die, will you follow me and keep me company?"

"I'm sorry, I can't help you out this time!", replied the 2nd wife. "At the very most, I can only walk with you to your grave."

Her answer struck him like a bolt of lightning, and the King was devastated.

Then a voice called out: "I'll go with you. I'll follow you no matter where you go."

The King looked up, and there was his first wife. She was very skinny as she suffered from malnutrition and neglect. Greatly grieved, the King said, "I should have taken much better care of you when I had the chance!"

In truth, we all have the 4 wives in our lives:

Our 4th wife is our body.
No matter how much time and effort we lavish in making it look good, it will leave us when we die.

Our 3rd wife is our possessions, status and wealth.
When we die, it will all go to others.

Our 2nd wife is our family and friends.
No matter how much they have been there for us, the furthest they can stay by us is up to the grave.

And our 1st wife is our Soul
Often neglected in pursuit of wealth, power and pleasures of the world. However, our Soul is the only thing that will follow us wherever we go.

Cultivate, strengthen and cherish it now, for it is the only part of us that will follow us to the throne of God and continue with us throughout Eternity.

Thought for the day: Remember, when the world pushes you to your knees, you're in the perfect position to pray.

Lastly, I found a photo of a drawing I did 20 years ago which gave me pause to think on area’s of my life that I did not feed, or take better care of. My youngest (Matthew) doubted I drew it. Why is that? Because he does not see me feed this ability!

Although I recall I had abilities and choices 20 years ago, I cannot easily call upon those abilities or change bad choices.

I did not feed some abilities and poured effort into wrong choices. I simply neglected the Good Wolf or 1st wife. I often think of other abilities and choices I passed on in pursuit of appetites that are only for a moment.

I know times are troubling. My boys are going through difficult times as I am sure my brother’s children are. I pray they look within themselves and recognize the good wolf and feed it well so your soul will never be underfeed.

I love my family. I will feed my soul good food! What say you?

Rejoice in the Lord always. I shall say it again: rejoice!

Your kindness should be known to all. The Lord is near. Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me. Then the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:5-10)

ARE YOU SAVED?

2006-11-12T11:23:00.000-08:00

A Christian should answers this question in three stages or levels corresponding to the three meanings the words "saved" and "salvation" have in the Bible.
Past
have been saved 2 Corinthians 5:17

Present
are being saved 1 Corinthians 15:2

Future
will be saved Romans 5:9
Salvation is a work in progress. No person can have complete assurance in being saved.

God alone knows the hearts of man (Acts 1:24).

However, we do have complete assurance of God's grace and desire to save us.

The Crucified Jesus shows us the level of love he has for us. We can depend on the Promises of God. Run the race to the finish line and receive the crown, Jesus himself wants to share with us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bible Verses:

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has
gone, the new has come!

1 Corinthians 15:2
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I
preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Romans 5:9
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall
we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

Acts 1:24
Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of
these two you have chosen

The Pope: a biblical understanding

2006-11-08T21:42:00.001-08:00

A self-proclaimed Evangelist, with a degree in biblical studies, challenged me with an ultimatum! I must “choose between the Catholic Church or the Bible as my teaching authority”? He claimed my “Christianity depended upon it”. He explained the Catholic Church “incorrectly interprets the scriptures” to support their un-biblical teachings. He wanted me to free myself of the my Catholic bias and accept scripture the correct way. He offered to teach me how to understand scripture.

My journey has involved many discussions with non-Catholics on issues in which they believe the Catholic Church teach in error. Some, like this Evangelist, have made bold statements about what the Catholic Church teaches. My initial response always is amazement at the claims made by non-Catholics on what the Church teaches. Again, the Evangelist told me, if I “remained a Catholic [I] must believe the teachings of the Pope carry as much weight as the Bible” and followed up with his earlier ultimatum.

My decision could not be voiced at the time of his challenge. I held tightly to the words of Rene Descartes and would not "judge anything that I do not clearly and distinctly understand".

My lack of knowledge of the official teachings of the Catholic Church forced me to fall silent at the time of the Evangelist pressure to leave the Church . However, after years of study, I pray my response will give glory to Jesus, my Lord and God!

The Catholic Church states the “teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on” (DEI VERBUM, 10). Many may find objections with this simple statement because of the ease we find statements that seem to disagree.

The Church dates herself to the time of the Apostles; which gives us about 2,000 years of history to study. I have found this to be more work then the average person is willing to invest. However, the need “to give an explanation” for the reason for my hope (1 Peter 3:15) has urged me to undergo the task. I continually “work out [my] salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12) because my faith is a priority.

I claim the Evangelist's ultimatum was incomplete. He neglected to elaborate on the teachings of the Bible, by-way of his own interpretations. I asked myself, do I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church or an Evangelist with a four-year degree in biblical studies? Both agree, Holy Scripture has authority! Yet both have different understandings of what scripture teaches.

Who is right? I needed to make a choice! Do I trust the Catholic Church to rightly interpret the Bible or do I trust an another who also claims to know the correct understanding of the Scripture? Both claims demand a response!

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
– (Acts 8:30-31)

Holy Scripture suggests someone is needed to help explain what is written. Philip, a member of the Church, was sent by the Holy Spirit to explain Scripture to the eunuch. Peter teaches that letters from Paul “contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16) and “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20). The Bible cautions Christians not to jump towards any persons own interpretation.

I can dismiss, as my guide, any personal understandings of Scripture, regardless of the education a person has achieved. This does not imply they are wrong, but cautions me not to look towards them as the final word on the matter. I will look for the person in which the Holy Spirit will send.

Who then do I look towards as the final word to rightly understand Holy Scripture? The Catholic Church claims to have the final word towards “Biblical Truth” on matters of faith and morals. Does Scripture support this claim?

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector
– (Matthew 18:17)

God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth
– (1 Timothy 3:15)

Scripture supports a view that the Church has the final word on matters of faith and morals (Matthew 18:17). It also agrees that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). The question must be; is the Catholic Church the same Church that has been instructed to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything [Jesus] Commanded” (Matthew 28:18-20)?

The Catholic Church claims to be the Church commission by Jesus that will be guided by “the Counselor, the Holy Spirit” who “will teach…all things and will remind” them “of everything” Jesus spoke (John 14:26). They support this view with an unbroken list of succession of leaders from the time of Peter.

Is succession important for authority within the Church, or does the authority of the church pass on to individual Christians as they come to a personal relationship with Christ?

The commission to baptize the world and teach all that Jesus taught was delivered to the eleven original disciples (Matthew 28:18-20), they are the first building blocks of the church.

Paul received his commission from a member of the Church, Ananias, who placed “his hands on Saul” (Acts 9:17) and brought him into fellowship with the Church.

Carefully observe that Paul did not receive this authority directly from the Holy Spirit, but through the structure of the church that Jesus promised to guide with the Holy Spirit until the end of time.

He said, "Who are you, sir?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do."
– (Acts 9:15-6)

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit
– (Acts 9:17)

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off
– (Acts 13:2-3)

Immediately Paul started to proclaim “Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20) when Ananias welcomed him into the Church. However, it was not until the Church received a calling from the Holy Spirit to set apart Saul for his mission, when he began to teach with the authority of the Church (Acts 13:2-3).

Many passages in the New Testament support the church as the authority for a Christian, but how does this truth apply to us today?

The Catholic Church claims the authority of the Christian Church, that started in a little room in Jerusalem (Acts 1:13), is passed to us today through a long line of continued succession. They supported this claim as being started and nourished by two of the “most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2-3 [A.D. 189]).

History and current observations of Christian practice supports this claim. However is the teaching of succession of authority, biblical?

In those days Peter stood up among the believers…“it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us…to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles
– (Acts 1:15-26)

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing…the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and…choose seven men from among [them] who are known…They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
–(Acts 6:1-6)

Yes, it is biblical! The first such evidence in the New Testament that supports succession of authority is in the Book of Acts. It is clear from Scripture that the laying of hands is the means of passing authority from Church members. Without this act how can one be sure a person is speaking in the name and authority of the Church?

Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas… I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain… James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews
– (Galatians 2:1-10)

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.
– (2 Timothy 2:1-2)

The early Christians in the New Testament had the same problem as we do today. “We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said” (Acts 15:24). Scripture, once again suggests authorization from the Church is needed to teach the Faith. Paul agreed and urged Timothy not to “be hasty in the laying on of hands” (1 Timothy 5:22).

Succession is important for the simple fact that it is biblical, therefore a valid reason to look into the claims of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII Online Edition offers a list of 266 Popes from Peter to Pope Benedict XVI. However, Irenaeus of Lyons, in AD 189, confronted Heresy with a list of succession that supports the teaching office of the Bishop of Rome;

it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches...tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere...The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric...To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most
abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth
– (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2-3 [A.D. 189])

The succession of the Catholic Church is supported throughout time, biblically and historically. It is not a new teaching, but of ancient origin. Yet, the Catholic Church holds another claim that is closely related to succession of authority. Peter is the head Sheppard among the Apostles and by virtue of his position his successors hold the same position and authority.

The famous proclamation of Peter (Matthew 16:17-19) and Jesus (John 21:15-17) will unfold the biblical understanding of Peter as holding an office of authority among the other Apostles. The most used verse to support this understanding is Matthew 16:17-19.

Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven'
– (Matthew 16:17-19)

Commentaries that go to great length to explain the reason why Matthew 16:17-19 does not support the office of the Pope and the Primacy of Peter does the reader no justice. By virtue of a commentary, we, the reader, should get an educational view of what the verse teaches, not what it does not teach. Unfortunately, I have seen several popular commentaries that argue against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary provides an example:

Peter answers in the name of all the rest, they all consenting to it, and concurring in it…So that this is far from being a proof of such primacy and superiority of Peter above the rest of the apostles, as the church of Rome ascribes to him…not the perpetual dictator or speaker of the house, only chairman upon this occasion.
– (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible, Matthew 16:13-20)

The verse in question does not directly or indirectly show “all consenting to” Peters confession as Henry’s Commentary teaches. We also know it is not Peter who “answers in the name of all” because Jesus only directs his comments to Peter alone (singular) and not to the group. I believe Henry’s comments on this verse is put forward to diminish an already, long established, understanding that Peter is the rock and he alone is given multiple blessing by Jesus.

The reply of Jesus is the interesting portion. The first words from Jesus; “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven” (Matthew 16:17), gives Peter a direct blessing by revealing the blessing that was given to him by the father.

Jesus singles out Peter and talks only to Peter in his reply. Jesus then says; “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”. The name changing of Simon to Peter is very important and must not be dismissed. For Jewish names have meaning and when a name is changed by God himself, this would indicate a calling for a particular purpose and it would be understood as another blessing. Simon’s name is changed to Peter, a Greek name that equals “a rock or a stone” (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon). Before we understand why Jesus who is the Rock changes Simon’s name to Peter, we need to remind ourselves that the Bible is one of the best ways to help us understand Holy Scripture. Name changing has been an important declaration by God throughout Scripture.

No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations
– (Genesis 17:5)

And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed
– (Genesis 32:28)

I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church
– (Matthew 16:18)

The comparisons of these verses should be apparent. However, because of the importance, a closer look is needed.

God, in the Old Testament, declared two important name changes in his plan of redemption and immediately elaborated their meaning. Abram will now be called Abraham which means “father of a multitude” or “chief of multitude” (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon). Jacob will be Israel meaning “he shall be a prince of God” (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon).

Likewise, Jesus in the New Testament changes Simon to Peter then immediately elaborates the meaning of his new name. Jesus will build his Church on Peter. How can Peter be the “rock” if we know from Holy Scripture that Jesus is the true Rock? Peter is the “rock” because Jesus has allowed him to be the “rock”.

The Catholic Church has always taught that Jesus is the giver of all things and everything about us comes from the Lord. Jesus declares that we “are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14). What does he mean we are the light? Does not Scripture clearly teach us Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12)? Yes, however Scripture also teaches that we are the light because Jesus, the true light, gives us his light. We do not reflect his light but we shine our own light that he freely gave (Matthew 5:16).

In the same way, Peter is the rock while Jesus is the true Rock. Peter did not earn this gift but it was freely given to him by Jesus, just as we did not earn the gift of being the light of the world.

The next important statement is the part about the keys. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This is a Blessing! If God wants to give you something it must be a blessing! Now let us understand the word “keys”. The Bible to help us once again in our inquiry. The words “keys” or “key” is mentioned ten times in the entire Bible depending on what version you have. The word usage is a bit different in a few of the verses. It is used to describe a person opening a door. It also describes the importance of God. However, the similarities in Matthew are the important verses we will search.

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open
– (Isaiah 22:22)

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
– (Matthew 16:19)

'The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this
– (Revelation 3:7)

I hold the keys to death and the netherworld
–(Revelation 1:18)

The word “key” or “keys” involve authority! Jesus gave Peter (singular) the keys alone. No other place does Jesus give keys to any other person. The duplication of words in Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19 and Revelation 3:7 are too similar to ignore. A first century Jewish man would automatically know of the similarities of the words of Jesus and Isaiah 22:22.

He would also understand his words as passing authority onto Peter as God in the Old Testament gave the keys to Eliakim, placing him as “master of the palace” (Isaiah 22:15), second in authority next to King David. The Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:17-19 supports the authority of Peter as the “rock” and the head Sheppard of the Apostles. Yet they use other verses to support the Biblical teaching of the Pope.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' (Jesus) said to him, 'Feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.' He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, 'Follow me'
–(John 21:15-17)

Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.– (Luke 22:31-32)

In John 21, Jesus heals the pain Peter carries due to his three fold denial of the Lord. Jesus affirms Peter as Head Sheppard when he commands Peter to “[f]eed [his] sheep” and “[t]end [his] sheep”. The last command of Jesus in John 21 was for Peter to “follow” him (John 21:15-17).

Peter is empowered by Jesus to serve the flock as the Lord served the flock. Jesus prayed for Peter (singular) that his “faith will not fail” and when he “turned back” to the Lord he was commanded to “strengthen [his] brothers” (Luke 22:31-32).

The Catholic Church supports the office of the Pope through scripture. It is true Scripture does not state plainly that Peter is the first Pope. Yet it gives strong evidence that Peter had the authority to lead the flock (the Church) and to lead the other Apostles (leaders of the Church).

Scripture also supports the understanding of succession of authority. Jesus tells his disciples that “[w]hoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

I follow the teaching of the Catholic Church not because I believe they have better answers than other Christian communities. No, I believe Jesus established his authority with people, the Church, and they passed their authority to “reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:1-2).

I follow the teaching of the Catholic Church because it is biblical.
________________

Appendix A

Did the Bishop of Rome originally have only "primacy of honor?"
By David Jensen

Sunday, September 18, 2005

I've heard the claim that the Catholic Church did not begin until much later in the history of Christianity. When this supposed "later" occurred often varies, depending upon the subjective view of the antagonist. Yet, the claim goes something like this:

The original Church taught that authority was vested in a college of bishops, each one being equal in authority. The Church in Rome was run by a group of presbyter-bishops until the mid-second century. The Bishop of Rome had nothing more than primacy of honor, being the "first among equals." There was no such thing in the early church as the Bishop of Rome having jurisdictional authority over the other bishops.

Let's compare this claim to the evidence of history...St. Ignatius (AD 50-110) wrote:

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father"
(Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force"
(ibid., 3:1)

This coming from a guy who learned his Christianity directly from St. John the Apostle. Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch from AD 70 until his martyrdom in Rome (ca. AD 110), presiding as Bishop in the place where they were first called Christians. Only the Catholic Church treats the "presidency" of the Bishop of Rome to be a matter of both honor and jurisdiction, to such an extent that what the Church of Rome enjoined in their instructions should remain in force.

According to non-Catholic Eastern Orthodox authors:

"Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of 'church-with-priority' at the end of the first century."
(THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church
edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992, page 124)

"... the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches [cf. 1 Clement, AD 80]. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority....Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument."
(ibid, page 125-126)

"Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius [AD 110] uses the phrase 'which presides' in two passages. ... The term 'which presides' [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the 'first place' at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church...[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the 'first place.' So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord....In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome."
(ibid, page 126-127)

St. Irenaeus, writing between AD 175 and 190 provides the earliest extant list of popes from Peter to Eleutherius (Adv. Haer. 3:3:3; Eusebius, "Hist. eccl." 5:6). Another extant list, called the Liberian Catalogue (AD 354) provides a list of popes from Peter to Liberius, with the length of their respective episcopates, the consular dates, the name of the reigning emperor, and in many cases other details. The list of popes is identical with that of Irenaeus, save that Anacletus is doubled into Cletus and Anacletus, while Clement appears before, instead of after, these two names. The order of Popes Pius and Anicetus has also been interchanged, all of which are likely to be copyist errors. Another witness is from Eusebius, from his "History" and his "Chronicle." Eusebius' Eastern list of popes is identical with the Western list of pops by Hippolytus, except that in the East the name of Linus' successor seems to have been given as Anecletus, but in the original Western list as Cletus. The two authorities presuppose the following list: (1) Peter, (2) Linus, (3) Anencletus [Cletus], (4) Clement, (5) Evarestus, (6) Alexander, (7) Sixtus, (8) Telesophorus, (9) Hyginus, (10) Pius, (11) Anicetus, (12) Soter, (13) Eleutherius, (14) Victor, (15) Zephyrinus, (16) Callistus (17) Urban, (18) Pontian (Harnack, "Chronologie", I, 152).We learn from Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4:22) that in the middle of the second century Hegesippus, the Hebrew Christian, visited Rome and that he drew up a list of bishops as far as Anicetus, the then pope. Eusebius does not quote his catalogue, but scholars see ground for holding that we possess it in a passage of Epiphanius (Haer. 27:6), in which the bishops as far as Anicetus are enumerated. This list of Hegesippus, drawn up less than a century after the martyrdom of St. Peter, was he believes, the foundation alike of the Eusebian and Hippolytan catalogues (Clement of Rome I, 325 so.). This view has been accepted by many scholars, both Catholic and non-Catholic. [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII, "Chronological Lists of Popes"]

Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly in his book, Oxford Dictionary of the Popes says, "The Papacy is the oldest of all Western institutions with an unbroken existence of almost 2000 years." Kelly lists the papacy from Peter to John Paul II. During the time of the Arian controversy in the fourth century, Kelly had this to say about the papacy:

"Since its occupant [ie. the pope] was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fufillment of the divine plan"
(JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pg 417)

Thus, many non-Catholics admit that the evidence of history shows the Catholic papacy started in the first century, but they theorize that it must have only originally had a primacy of honor, not that of jurisdiction. I find this thesis lacking historical support, however. Observe...Eastern Father, St. Athanasius, called the Council of Sardica: "the great Council" (Defense Against the Arians, 1) and "the Holy Synod" (Letter to the People of Antioch, 5). Take note of what that council, which St. Athanasius was a member, in fact affirmed in a letter to the Pope Julius (AD 342):

"So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their HEAD, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle" (Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius, as cited by prominent historian James T. Shotwell and Louise Ropes Loomis, The See of Peter (New York:Columbia, 1927), pp.527-528.)

Now, I'm a military man, and I know what "report to" and "head" means. It's not something merely "of honor" but clearly means both honor and jurisdiction. Just in case that isn't evidence enough, there's more ...Just like St. Ignatius (AD 50-110), we find later on in St. Irenaeus' works (AD 189) what the "presidency" of the Church of Rome means to orthodox Christians of the second century:

"we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

If "honor" includes "all the faithful in the whole world" must agree with the Church in Rome, then that sounds particularly Catholic, no? Who still insists upon this second century assertion to this day? The Catholic Church. ccording to Eastern Orthodox scholarship:

"Irenaeus [AD 189] insists that anyone looking for the truth can find it in the Tradition of the Apostles, which every local church has preserved. So we must suppose he thought that the Apostolic Tradition and the Faith proclaimed to mankind were preserved in the Roman Church more fully than in others, or, at least, in a more
manifest way."
(THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992)

According to St. Cyprian of Carthage (AD 251):

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). .. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"
(The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church"
(Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with
the Catholic Church"
(ibid., 55[52]:1).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source"
(ibid., 59:14).

From Eastern Orthodox scholarship:

"according to [Cyprian's] doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church....According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter's throne-par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church [Ecclesiae catholicae matricem et radicem]. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]."
(THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992, page 98-99)

According the St. Cyprian, the PRINCIPAL Church is at Rome, and it is from that Church that the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its source. It is clear that holding fast to the chair of Peter defines, for St. Cyprian, whether one is truly in the Church. A contemporary of St. Athanasius, Optatus (AD 367) wrote the following:

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat ... in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one."
(Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3)

I'm seeing a definite Catholic theme here. Now comes the most explicit evidence of jurisdictional authority, from the Ecumencial Council of Chalcedon (accepted by Eastern Orthodox):

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness."
(Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3)

Hmmmm... it seems the primacy of the See of Peter included the juridical authority to strip the Patriarch of Alexandria of his episcopate. There's more...From the letter to Pope Leo from the Bishops of Chalcedon:

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith
(Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98)

Besides all this, he (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness(ibid).

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children.
(ibid)

Notice that the Eastern and Western Bishops of Chalcedon are asking for Pope Leo's ratification of their councilar decisions, yielding their agreement to the "HEAD" of the Church. Note that they consider themselves "CHILDREN" to Pope Leo. Also note that they assert that Pope Leo had been charged with "CUSTODY OF THE VINE BY THE SAVIOR" and not by political gain or the mere consent of the other bishops. These claims agree with Catholicism. Pope Leo undoubtedly had singular juridical authority to either ratify or to reject the councilar decisions. No other bishop was asked to ratify the councilar decision, because no other bishop had been charged with "custody of the vine by the Savior." So, what did Pope Leo do? There were 28 canons decided upon at Chalcedon. Pope Leo ratified all of them except canon 28, which attempted to elevate Constantinople with wording that was contrary to Catholic teaching. Pope Leo exercised his VERY REAL juridical authority and rejected canon 28. Subsequently, Anatolius, the Bishop of Constantinople, wrote to Pope Leo, and apologetically stated,

"As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople [ie. canon 28], let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of
confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.
(Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132, on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon)

The evidence of history is clear. Pope Leo had juridical authority to veto that which an Ecumenical Council of Bishops agreed to. Only the Bishop of Rome has ever exercised this clear jurisdictional authority in the history of Christianity. Did Pope Leo "preside" only in honor or did he have real authority to either ratify or reject councilar decisions? It seems clear the latter is true, contrary to the opinion of later revisionists. Why did Pope Leo have this authority? The bishops of both East and West at Chalcedon in the fifth century asserted as the Catholic Church asserts today: the pope has been charged with the custody of the Vine by the Savior.

God bless, Dave

http://itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/

Journey

2006-11-08T20:26:00.000-08:00

“When it comes to matters of final authority there is agreement among the major branches of Christianity with regard to the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament. However, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the church go somewhat beyond the Bible as to their source of authority.” (McDowell 26)

“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the twenty-two or twenty-four, books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism.…It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuteron-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of the Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. Begun at Alexandria about the middle of the third century B.C., this became the Bible of the Greek-speaking Jews of the Dispersion, and most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.” (Kelly 53)

As a child, I always viewed the Bible as a special book. My family had several Bibles throughout our home; I remember one as being extra special. Its dark leather cover had engraved designs trimmed in gold with a metal cross for unzipping. It was placed center stage on the coffee table, which invited second glances from all who looked upon it. For those bold enough to flip through the pages, time instantly reversed itself to days long since past. Today, this book gives more of an impression of a trophy displayed in a house. I never understood why this particular Bible had importance in our home until last week while talking with my mother. She explained that it was “special”; because as a little girl it was the one gift she asked for and received (Jensen).

Being raised in the Catholic tradition she understood the Bible as the “written Words of God” (Jensen). Her Bible study classes she instructed at the Church has always lingered in my mind. It was obvious the Bible had played an enormous roll in her life; however, in my own life, I had not arrived at her same understanding. Yet, I could never quite dismiss it as a mere book.

Like my mother, I grew up within the Catholic tradition. My early education was formed in the Catholic school system. My daily religious classes and my twice a week Mass[1] attendence gave me a jump-start on my faith. Unfortunately, a move away from this school led to a softening of my convictions. I soon concluded Mass was no longer important. Likewise, the Bible lost its appeal!

The big circle of life came hard upon me when I found myself a father of two boys, Shane and Matthew and facing a broken marriage. The divorce hit me hard, resulting in questions that pierced like lightning rods through my heart. What was wrong with me? What did I do to deserve this? How are my kids going to handle the shuffle between two households? With questions of uncertainty, I wanted answers, not only for myself, but also for my boys who now faced a world different from my plan.

Struggling in a broken home gave need for more parental guidance than this single Dad could offer. So, at the age of 27, looking for financial and emotional support, I moved in with my parents. I immediately enrolled the boys in religious education classes and started attending Sunday Mass on a regularly basis. My hope was to educate the boys with a God fearing morality while giving them a sense of belonging. Looking back, this desire for my children was the pivotal moment in my own journey back to faith, which I had allowed to fade long ago, though it had never disappeared from the depths of my soul.

My decision to learn more about Christianity involved more than just attending Sunday service at my local parish.[2] I decided to jump into my truck, travel across town and purchased my first Bible. The cost of my New International Version or NIV was only $10. Randy, a Christian counselor from the Boise Calvary Chapel recommended this version because of its ease in reading and its popularity with other Bible-believing Churches. My initial purchase was two Bibles, one for my wife and the other for myself.

The hope of saving my marriage through counseling still pushed at my heart. Soon, we realized our marriage was no not to be saved. However, the sessions with Randy etched my desire to read and understand this book, which he believed could reveal answers to my questions.

Reading the Bible was not a smooth and systematic task. The bits and pieces I would read did not establish anything new. After a couple of years of sporadic reading I met a self-proclaimed Evangelist or “Bible Thumper” as he called himself, whom I will refer to as John. John was the first to ask some direct questions about my faith. I was captivated by his ability to recall verses within the Bible. I had always understood faith as being unexplainable. However, his approach of being able to proclaim what and why he believed was electrifying. With this new approach towards the Bible, I proceeded to underline, highlight and mark the pages like a textbook studied in school. This book was not to be a trophy in my home.

Once confident in my knowledge about the Bible and its contents, I dared to enter into in-depth discussions. One particular conversation, I had with my brother Dave, led to the discovery that my Bible had fewer books than his. He explained the Catholic Church recognizes more books as belonging to Scripture than the Protestant Churches. His explanation gave rise to a new dilemma. I not only had life questions to answer but also the need to determine which Bible I should use. My newfound doubts about my Bible forced the need to purchase a Catholic Bible. With both Bibles in hand and a bit of curiosity as to which bible might be correct, my journey thickened.

My new problem forced a closer look into today’s understanding of Christianity. As my brother had asserted, Christianity was divided. Josh McDowell, author of Handbook of Today’s Religions, breaks it into three major branches: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant (26). McDowell explains that all three branches recognize the major outline of Christianity (26); Jesus is the Christ[3] who “died for our sins”, “was buried” and who was “raised on the third day” (NAB 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). They also recognize Holy Scripture as being authored by God (McDowell 26). However, this is where the differences begin. The three branches disagree on which books were truly authored by God.

The Protestant Churches was confirmed to have fewer books as being sacred than their Eastern Orthodox and Catholic brothers (All About God Ministries). The Catholics have 73 books; the Eastern Orthodox varies with 73-plus books, while Protestant holds a firm 66 (Spread the Word). To my surprise, the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches held a similar view on which books were to be included within the canon[4] and had similar reasons for their acceptance (McDowell 26).

The similarities of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches pushed my decision to narrow my focus towards the differences between the Protestant and Catholic view points.

My Catholic background helped me understand some basic beliefs about the Bible from a Catholic perspective. The Catholics accept the same writings as the Protestant Churches. However, the Catholic Church includes seven more books and a few verses in two already accepted books. The books in question are: Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach or Ecclesiasticus and Baruch along with those books two others have more verses; Daniel and Esther (Brown 1041). Many conversations among Protestants touched on the belief that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible; this of course was a shock to me because of my understanding of the Catholic Church being the protector of Scripture the last 2,000 years. So I tried to look into the validity of this claim.

The Christian Bible is separated into two sections the Old and New Testaments. With much debate and turbulence, the majority of Christendom has agreed on the New Testament. This seemingly agreed belief in what books belong in the New Testament gave me the desire to focus, even more narrowly, towards the development of the Old Testament. How did we come to conclude what books belonged into this Testament?

Sacred Scripture played a profound role in early Christianity (NAB Acts 8:27-36). As a young Christian, I never gave the Bible a second thought as to what books belonged. Most people, I would think, know that Christianity emerged from Judaism, which created an overlapping between the two religions. Nevertheless, I find that many people still overlook the obvious and fail to recognize that the early Christians still saw themselves as Jews. This duel identity gave them full access to all the Jewish writings (Brown 1041) which enabled them free use of any writings they thought best to support their faith in Jesus (Currie 105-106). The overlapping caused a rivalry between Christianity and Judaism. Many critical scholars believe the friction between these two groups and the free use of writings the Christians displayed forced the Jewish leaders to canonize their complete list of sacred books (Brown 1040).

With Christianity spreading to the many regions of the Roman Empire, most people could not understand the scriptures when presented in their original language; Hebrew or Aramaic. The limited use of these languages in the Roman Empire influenced the use of the common language translation. This translation is known as the Septuagint or LXX and the common language was Greek (Kelly 53).

The LXX was already in use before the time of Christianity. It proved to be a great tool for early Christians when they showed from scriptures the good news about Jesus. Also, until the latter part of the 2nd century, the Jewish Scriptures were not yet closed for addition or subtraction (Brown 1040).

This unrestricted list of Sacred Writings enabled the early Christians to freely use this translation and/or any writings they believed supported their faith. It is this translation that my Evangelist friend, John, claims the Catholic Church adopted, “in error”, as the Old Testament. He affirms the Hebrew Bible, not the LXX; contain the correct books of the Christian Old Testament. This claim led to another conversation with Dave, who is studying for his Masters degree in Religious Studies. I have been able to utilize his education as a launching point for some inside sources. Dave explained that John has an “incorrect” understanding of history and Catholic teaching. “The historical evidence shows discernment of those books in the LXX”, thus the Catholic Church “chose what books are sacred after much discussion and debate in the 4th century.” Dave provides an illustration for us; “Ezra A” is a book included in all the trusted copies of the LXX. However, it is not recognized by either Protestant or Catholic Churches. “This shows discernment”, explained Dave.

Briefly, my brother demonstrated through verifiable evidence that the Catholic Church did not just adopt the LXX as the Old Testament as John claimed. The Church prayerfully determined, from all the books available which should be used by Christians as Sacred Scripture. Some of the books accepted were not included in the LXX. The Church has always professed the Holy Spirit continues to guide them into the knowledge of God.

The Catholic Church has believed that it was given the authority to decide matters of faith and morals from the birth of Christianity (NAB Acts 15:1-12). They base this understanding on Apostolic Tradition and Holy Scripture. The majority of Christendom has accepted this for the better part of 1,500 years. It was not until the time of the Reformation that this viewpoint changed for many Christians.

The Reformation marks the birth of Protestantism. Today, the majority of our population would associate the Reformation Movement with Catholic monk, Martin Luther. On October 31, in the year of our Lord 1517, Luther nailed his famous ninety-five-theses[5] on the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, a small unassuming city in the Germanic region. This posting was done in the usual practice and as a regular way of life at the University for publicizing any disputations (Buhler).

Luther was educated in theology with an uncompleted background in canon law. He had no intentions of ripping apart his Church and honestly believed the Pope would recognize his position and support a reform within the structure of the Church (Bettenson 205). His actions, directed to expose the abuse of indulgences[6], came on deaf ears within the Church. However, outside of the Church people became intrigued with his arguments and quickly reproduced his theses and distributed them in other cities.

Luther, himself, was not against the pure pious practice of indulgence as his theses affirmed (Bettenson 205-212). His main concern was the practice which members of the Church had developed to acquire wealth under the pretense of indulgence (Buhler).

The overtone of his theses helped beginnings of his teaching against the authority structure of the Church. I concluded with just a cursory reading of his theses the major issue was not the abuse of indulgence but the errors in the Church and the priesthood. He knowingly or unknowingly was targeting the authority of the Church, underneath the blanket of indulgence abuse. Luther could not imagine his theses would spark his eventually path that lead him to recognize fewer books as Scripture.

The invention of the printing press was also a powerful force in the successful outcome of the Reformation. Ideas and thoughts could be multiplied by the masses and distributed faster and farther than at any time known to man thus far. It is believed by many scholars that the Reformations could not have succeeded without the printing press and the Luther movement would have ended in the same way as Jan Hus (1373-1415) had a hundred years earlier—burned at the stake (Buhler).

Martin Luther was not burned at the stake due to many factors that had developed from the time of Hus (Buhler). Luther’s ideas took root and sparked a fire within the people to change the way of life they had been living. Reformation was in the air and ready to emerge. Luther was just one of many flames that burned in the land.

After Luther was excommunicated[7] from the Catholic Church, he became the head Pastor of his new Lutheran Church. His followers gave their fellowship up with the Catholic Church. The biggest differences between the two traditions of Christianity would be in the structure of authority. Lutherans embrace the understanding of a Pastor, teacher of Scripture, as an equal along with lay people. They also profess each and every soul is ultimately accountable for their own faith. This teaching falls in line with the birth of individualism. As previously stated, Reformation was in the air. In my opinion, the Reformation was going to happen with or without Luther and his ninety-five-theses. The desire for individuality was spreading like wild fire. It did not stop and is alive and well today.

Luther soon found every person with or without an education had his own understanding of scripture. Needless to say, they did not always agree with Luther’s understanding. This pushed Luther to develop the authority structure within his own church body to protect the scriptures from being brutally interpreted by uneducated individuals. The Pastor structure was a compromise, which Luther developed, to protect his followers from the spread of individualism. The Pastor was looked upon, as a teacher of Scripture, with no authority from God to Shepard his people. Naturally, Luther became the head Pastor of his Church (Buhler).

“Scripture Alone” became the cry for the Reformation Movement. With the reformers breaking away and/or excommunicated from the Catholic Church, they were left without an authority, only a Pastor, who as an equal had no authority.

A central viewpoint concluded by Luther was the incorrect doctrine of the priesthood and that each Christian is responsible for his/her faith with no need for a Priest. Thus, the priesthood was a rejected practice in his teachings. The lack of priests left the reformers without an authority for guidance. Luther developed his famous doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” and taught each Christian needs only to look and study the Bible to build their faith. This teaching enabled his followers to by-pass the authority of the Catholic Church and look towards Scripture as their authority.

The new doctrine of “scripture only” produced another dilemma for reformers. They needed to know what scripture was outside of Catholic teaching. In order to strengthen the position of the reform, Luther understood the Old Testament to be inherited from the Sacred Writings of the Jewish religion. With this understanding he proclaimed the Jewish Scriptures as the books Christians should regard as the Old Testament. This enabled the Christians to recognize what was scripture without the need of Catholic authority.

In retrospect, my first feelings about Martin Luther were negative. Now, after reading and learning about the turbulent times of the Reformation, I have more respect for him than before. I now realize he was a product of his time and a needed instrument which helped split the ties between church and state. Although, his pride and arrogance pushed him into heretical teachings, he had good intentions and understood the need for reform!

My experience has shown that most Christians do not fully realize the complicated development of the Bible. An email from Professor Charles Odahl, a specialist in Early Christianity, at Boise State University hit home when I found myself deep into research. He explained the development of the Bible “is an extremely difficult topic,” and I needed to learn Latin, Greek and Hebrew in order for me to understand its process. His invitation to enroll into his courses of first and second year Latin, “Early Christianity”, “Constantine” and “Christian Rome” struck me as comical. He noted that I would need to complete these classes in order to be qualified enough to write a paper on this subject. Wow! I first laughed at his email, but now I say; “See you next year Dr. Odahl”, because like most Christians I did not understand the complexities of this topic.

My drive to learn and understand the Bible is the force behind my research. My abilities and/or lack of abilities towards this study had established that the answer to my question, of which Bible to study, is not discovered by logic or proof, but faith. There comes a time when all of the information you have will not be enough to satisfy you with an answer. I can honestly say that both sides have good arguments. However, since I am historically inclined and I look towards historical understanding, I lean toward the Catholic Bible.

The Bible is first and foremost an ancient document. I would be negligent if I did not first look at it with that understanding. I then must look at all the voices that have talked about this document. What do they have say about Scripture?

Augustine is one such individual that is looked upon from both sides of the debate as a Father of the Church. He listed what he understood to be scripture at the end of the 4th century AD. This is also the same list that the council of Trent declared in AD 1545-1563 (Brown 136) and Pope Damasus declared in AD 382 (Brown 1036).

I am compelled to accept as scripture the Catholic Bible. It has more supporting arguments I cannot ignore. I don’t worry if I am wrong in this regard and any person that picks up a Protestant Bible should not either. God knows our hearts and desires. He will lead us through his door if we ask. Jesus did not shut out a person because he did not have the complete Bible. My faith is in Jesus not the Bible. The Bible only helps me in my walk with Christ. As for my life questions that started this quest, well, they are still around and the only answer thus far is the love of Jesus and his Grace of forgiveness.
AMEN!
________________________________________
This research essay was an assignment from my English 102 Class during the Spring semester of 2004 at Boise State University, instructed by Dr. Steve Barrett, May 13, 2004.
________________________________________
Footnotes
[1] A commemoration, renewal and representation of the Last Supper and Calvary (Kolodziej 41)
[2] A local church community.
[3] Anointed one or prophesied Messiah (Savior).
[4] To declare
[5] A disputation from the Catholic Monk, Martin Luther to the scholars at the University of Wittenberg to discuss theological concerns involving the Catholic Church’s practice of Indulgence.
[6] An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due sins already forgiven as far as their guilt is concerned, which the follower of Christ with the proper dispositions and under certain determined conditions acquires through the intervention of the Church which, as minister of the Redemption, authoritatively dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfaction won by Christ and the saints (Pope Paul VI Indulgentarium Doctrina).
[7] Excluded from the rites of the church.

Works Cited

All About GOD Ministries, Inc. Septuagint and Reliablility. http://www.septuagint.net/. March 2004

Betttenson. Henry. Maunder, Christ. Documents of the Christian Church. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press. NY. 1999

Brown, Raymond E., et al., eds. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice-Hall. USA. 1990

Buhler, Peter. BSU History 101 Lecture. Spring 2004Catholic Answers. http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp 1979-2004

Catholic Encyclopedia. Apocrypha. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm September 2003.

Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Grand Rapids Michigan. 1967

Currie, David B. Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. Ignatius Press. San Francisco. 1996

Jensen, Angie. Personal Interview. March 2, 2004Jensen, David. Personal Interview. March 20, 2004

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. 2nd Edition. Harper & Row Publishers. New York.1960

Kolodziej, Maynard. Understanding the Mass. Catholic Publishing. New Jersey. 1998

McDowell, Josh. Stewart, Don. Handbook of Today’s Religions. Campus Crusades for Christ, Inc. 1983.

McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought, An Introduction. 2nd Edition. Blackwell. Malden, Massachusetts. 1997

New American Bible (NAB). Saint Jerome Edition. Catholic Book Publishing. New York. 1992.

New International Version (NIV). Bible. Zondervan Publishing. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1994

Odahl, Charles. “Re: Questions”. E-Mail to the author with permission. 02/19/04 Spread the Word. On the Bible. www.spread-the-word.info/faq’s/on_the_bible.htm

Webster’s New World Compact School and Office Dictionary 4th edition. Wiley Publishing, Inc. Cleveland Ohio`