Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[Valletta]

That doesn't answer my question. What would it have mattered if Mary had other children?

At best you can argue that the reference to brothers and sisters could be references to cousins or other relatives but it does not prove it. Therefore, it is possible (according to Scripture) that Mary did have other children. So again, my question, what would it matter if she did have other children? What would that change for you?

I've answered but you don't seem to care for the answer. It would be the same as if God chose only six Apostles or if God used some old wood to build the Ark or there was no Bible or there were eighteen Commandments, I would accept God's plan.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I've answered but you don't seem to care for the answer. It would be the same as if God chose only six Apostles or if God used some old wood to build the Ark or there was no Bible or there were eighteen Commandments, I would accept God's plan.

Fair enough. I suspect Mary did have other children but it changes nothing.

So where did the priesthood come from? Why the change from elders and deacons who could be married? Why no longer elder-run churches?

 

[Valletta]

Yes, you need Jesus but you don't receive him in the eucharist. It is a memorial and you are closest to him in faith.

The Eucharist is indeed a memorial as is explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church
1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.
1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.
1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

www.usccb.org

Nowhere does the NT teach that we can turn break and wine into Christ's literal body and blood.

Jesus, as quoted in 1365 of the Catholic Catechism above, says "This is my Body" and tells the Apostles to "Do this." What does a priest do? He breaks and blesses the bread, says the words of consecration as Jesus commanded, and distributes the Body of Our Lord to the people.

History does name some of the men who helped form the canon of Scripture though most are unnamed. These men met as Christian men before there was a true RCC. The fact that centuries later the RCC claimed a line of successors back to Peter does not make it so. Were there bishops of Rome? Sure. Was Peter in Rome and its first bishop? There is no evidence he was. Only tradition. We know Paul was in Rome but he never mentioned Peter being there and Peter is believed to have died not many years after Paul. Jesus left no instructions about Peter having a successor even if you believe he was the head of the church. Paul and the other NT writers never mention Peter as being the head, a major oversight if in fact he was.

Where does the Bible define the office of the priest? Where does it specify such men should be celibate? I only read of elders and deacons both of whom may be married so where did celibate priests come from? How about celibate nuns for that matter? These are not offices or positions described in the Bible.

I believe RC practices grew out of manmade traditions over a period of centuries. Calling early church gatherings "masses" does not make them so, at least not in the RC sense. We read of such meetings in the Book of Acts but we don't read of a priest presiding or of a specified liturgy.

Yes, we strive for a close personal relationship with Jesus but when I talk to a Catholic I mostly hear about the church. I often hear more about Mary, the mass, confession, and the various sacraments than I hear about Jesus. Most of the praying I hear about are rosaries and other prayers that have been so memorized as to be mind-numbing. The RCC is so stuck on tradition that it won't even allow their priests to give their own prayers. Everything must be read from a prayer book that has been officially sanctioned. Why send their priests to seminary if they are going to end up reading nearly every word of the mass from books? Do they not trust these men to express the same ideas in their own words? It is the teachings of Scripture that are sacred not the specific wording. I grew up Catholic and in nearly 22 years as a Catholic, I learned very little outside of the practices of the RCC. It wasn't until I began reading and studying the Bible for myself that I really began to learn. The 10 minute homilies at each mass barely scratched the surface of the passages read and all too often those were replaced with some recorded message from the bishop. RC makes so much of the eucharist that it neglects teaching the Word. Most of the mass is devoted to the eucharist and liturgy that very little of the Word is taught. That might have made sense back when Bibles were not common as a way to introduce Scripture, but Bibles have been common for centuries now and still the RCC sticks to an ancient liturgy and did not even start using the common tongues of the masses until 1960. I actually attended a few masses said in Latin with the priest's back to the church. It was a performance or spectacle as you couldn't understand a word the priest was saying. I saw zero value in that.

If I am critical it is because I realize now how much I missed out on for all those years. Years I could have been really learning the Word of God but instead heard the same prewritten words over and over and over again. I was more a disciple of the church than of Jesus. Then, in the 9th grade, I prayed to receive Jesus as my Lord and Savior and read the entire Bible 4 times straight. That is when my life changed. Not from all the rituals I had gone through as a Catholic. In my 20s I was baptized in a lake and that for me was my real baptism.

It sounds like you were not paying attention to the homilies, I know I was not when I was young. I mean I heard, but was not really "listening." Priests do a good job at driving points of the Gospel home in their homilies. Of course it is an impossible task to reach or satisfy every person, people of different ages and backgrounds. Try not to get hung up on disciplines or practices within the Church such as language or priestly celibacy. These are debatable topics and our not part of the spiritual teaching of the Church. For example, the Catholic Church translated the Bible into Latin because Latin was the common language of the people in Europe. Thus the Latin "Vulgate" from the word "vulgar," meaning common. Latin morphed into many other languages over the centuries and Catholics made translations of Biblical text into numerous common languages. But Latin was the universal language for most of Christianity. Latin was mandatory in high school for my older brother, but because of the Vatican II changes it was not required when I got there. If you didn't care to learn Latin you could read along in the missal. Latin was the common language of the people, and it is was a huge task to accurately translate the liturgy into many common languages. How much or into how many languages to translate the Bible or the liturgy is debatable. Let me ask, do you think poorly of Jesus because he spoke Aramaic but did not make copies of the Hebrew language Scriptures in Aramaic? How about the Apostles? Do you criticize them because they did not make Aramaic copies either? The liturgy is indeed ancient, so much of the liturgy is from the Bible, particularly Revelation. There is no need to make radical changes to what was passed down from Jesus through the Apostles. The Church is teaching the true Word of God. The priesthood of Aaron pre-figured the priesthood of Melchizedek. Melchizidek offered mere bread and wine, prefiguring Jesus who offers His Body and Blood.
John 6:48-58
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[c] 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?”[d] 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.” RSVCE

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The Eucharist is indeed a memorial as is explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church
1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.
1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.
1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ's Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

www.usccb.org

Jesus, as quoted in 1365 of the Catholic Catechism above, says "This is my Body" and tells the Apostles to "Do this." What does a priest do? He breaks and blesses the bread, says the words of consecration as Jesus commanded, and distributes the Body of Our Lord to the people.



It sounds like you were not paying attention to the homilies, I know I was not when I was young. I mean I heard, but was not really "listening." Priests do a good job at driving points of the Gospel home in their homilies. Of course it is an impossible task to reach or satisfy every person, people of different ages and backgrounds. Try not to get hung up on disciplines or practices within the Church such as language or priestly celibacy. These are debatable topics and our not part of the spiritual teaching of the Church. For example, the Catholic Church translated the Bible into Latin because Latin was the common language of the people in Europe. Thus the Latin "Vulgate" from the word "vulgar," meaning common. Latin morphed into many other languages over the centuries and Catholics made translations of Biblical text into numerous common languages. But Latin was the universal language for most of Christianity. Latin was mandatory in high school for my older brother, but because of the Vatican II changes it was not required when I got there. If you didn't care to learn Latin you could read along in the missal. Latin was the common language of the people, and it is was a huge task to accurately translate the liturgy into many common languages. How much or into how many languages to translate the Bible or the liturgy is debatable. Let me ask, do you think poorly of Jesus because he spoke Aramaic but did not make copies of the Hebrew language Scriptures in Aramaic? How about the Apostles? Do you criticize them because they did not make Aramaic copies either? The liturgy is indeed ancient, so much of the liturgy is from the Bible, particularly Revelation. There is no need to make radical changes to what was passed down from Jesus through the Apostles. The Church is teaching the true Word of God. The priesthood of Aaron pre-figured the priesthood of Melchizedek. Melchizidek offered mere bread and wine, prefiguring Jesus who offers His Body and Blood.
John 6:48-58
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[c] 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?”[d] 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.” RSVCE

In his book The Faith of Millions, John O’Brien, a Catholic priest, explains the procedure of the mass.

When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. [2]

This statements has so many things wrong with it. First, Christ is not at the command of the priest. No priest brings Christ down from his throne. Second, Christ has already made the once and for all sacrifice and now rests seated at the right hand of the Father. There is no need for him to be sacrificed again. He is not an "eternal Victim for the sins of man." His one sacrifice in death was enough.

It is blasphemy to suggest the "eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest's command."

23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever. (Hebrews 7:23-28)

Note there were "many priests" (v 23) but now "He" (v 24 and following). There was an imperfect Levitical priesthood which had to "daily...offer up sacrifices" but now "He did once and for all when He offered up Himself." There is a contrast being made between the Levitical Priesthood which had many priests who had to daily offer sacrifices including for themselves with Christ who is a High Priest of the order of Melchizedek, a singular priest who offered up one sacrifice sufficient for all men for all time. Christ's is a more perfect sacrifice because in one sacrifice of Himself he accomplished all that the many thousands of Levitical sacrifices never could. Yet Roman Catholicism would take us back to the Levitical priesthood offering daily sacrifices by priests who themselves need sacrifices. They claim their priests are part of the priesthood of Melchizedek yet clearly only Christ is of that priesthood and his sacrifice does not need to be repeated "a thousand times."

26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. (Hebrews 9:26-28) emphasis added

Roman Catholicism says Christ must be offered over and over again yet Scripture tells us His sacrifice was once. We have no further need of earthly altars yet every RC church has an altar. We have no further need for sacrifices yet the RC church sacrifices Christ again and again and again.

They try to dance around this by saying:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

Here, they try and say it "re-presents", makes present, the sacrifice of the cross. They don't define what that means to make a sacrifice in the past "re-present" at this time. It's gobblygook trying to say it's not a new sacrifice but the old one happening again at this time. Yet, Trent says:

“If anyone says that, in the Mass, a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.”

That means a "true and real sacrifice" is being offered. It's not just the old one being "re-present." If Christ's sacrifice was "once and for all", as Hebrews teaches, then there can be no further "true and real sacrifice(s)." When Jesus died on the cross He cried out "It is finished!" That means done, complete, never to be repeated. Jesus said to do these things "in memory of me." He didn't say He'd return from heaven and be 're-present' on an altar again." I suspect the RCC is tried to create a mystical event called the Eucharist that would bound their people even more to their church advertising it as a means of grace and coming in touch with the very body and blood of Christ when it is only a memorial. Christ is not present in bodily form. We do not eat His body or drink His blood. Those words were clearly figurative in context. There is no further need of sacrifices, no priests, and no altars. Those things run contrary to Scripture.

 

[JoeT]

This is not proof she was sinless. Likewise, attempts are made to say "all" does not mean "all" when Scripture says "all have sinned." It is argued that this would make Christ a sinner but clearly he is excluded because unlike the rest of humanity including Mary) he had a divine spirit that did not come from Mary. As Jesus was/is fully God means he cannot sin. That was not because his mother was sinless (she wasn't) but because he is fully God and thus could not sin. He was fully human in his physical being but our sin nature does not come via DNA. It is not something passed genetically.

Quite often we hear the refrain, "if its not in the bible it ain't so". Now, accordingly, the argument is completely irrelevant because it says "all have sinned". And since Christ was God and man, the "God part" wins out preventing him from sinning or contracting original sin. However, we are also taught that Jesus Christ is like us in every way except sin. If that's true, then accordingly in your paradigm, Jesus is a sinner because all born of woman have original sin. Unless, of course you wish to argue that God just the "God part" died on the Cross. In either case, it wasn't God that died, it was the Second Person of the Trinity. A person found to be a worthy immolation and oblation for the sins of man, something of perfection adored and surrendered.

There is only one way Christ is like us in every way and not contract original sin and that's to be human born of a New Eve. Thus, without original sin.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Quite often we hear the refrain, "if its not in the bible it ain't so". Now, accordingly, the argument is completely irrelevant because it says "all have sinned". And since Christ was God and man, the "God part" wins out preventing him from sinning or contracting original sin. However, we are also taught that Jesus Christ is like us in every way except sin. If that's true, then accordingly in your paradigm, Jesus is a sinner because all born of woman have original sin. Unless, of course you wish to argue that God just the "God part" died on the Cross. In either case, it wasn't God that died, it was the Second Person of the Trinity. A person found to be a worthy immolation and oblation for the sins of man, something of perfection adored and surrendered.

There is only one way Christ is like us in every way and not contract original sin and that's to be human born of a New Eve. Thus, without original sin.

JoeT

You provided the answer yourself, "Jesus Christ is like us in every way except sin." He was not assigned the guilt of Adam's sin for if he had been He could not have been our propitiation. Sin is not a thing. It is not genetic. You don't get it from your mother or your father. You get it from being part of the fallen human race of which Jesus was exempted because he was like us in "every way except sin." Scripture nowhere says Mary was like us "in every way except sin." Jesus was sinless because He was the lone exception being fully divine. Mary did not have to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. That He was genetically human enabled Him to die for our sins. You act as though sin or a sin nature is something genetic. It is a spiritual condition, not a physical condition. Jesus was fully God and fully human "except sin."

 

[Valletta]

What is so inalterable about the words of the Mass that they even had to be translated? Surely the priests know the substance of what is being said that they could use their own words in the language of their audience. It seems form is more important than substance.

Much of the liturgy is taken from the Bible. The Catholic Church not only chose the books of the Bible, but preached the Gospel, translated Biblical text into numerous tongues, and preserved Holy Scripture over all of these centuries. The Catholic Church has declared the Bible to be God-breathed--the Word of God. Catholics have used scholars from many religions, Jews, and non-Catholic Christians, etc. in order to accurately translate the Word of God. With over a billion Catholics and the Catholic Church in every country in the world it would be great folly to let each priest try and translate the liturgy into their own language. Look at the ideas that you have come up with because you did not have a proper knowledge of the original Biblical language. Why you just mentioned the Eucharist as being a "memorial," which it is, but you have your own ideas of what a "memorial" means in translated English while missing the nuances in the original Biblical text.

That one, Melchzidek, was a type of Christ. He was not the first of a new order of priests. Only one priest is like Melchizedek and that is Christ. The Aaronic priesthood ended with the death of Christ. Hebrews says Christ's sacrifice was "once and for all." It is not to ever be repeated. Jesus was the ultimate and final high priest. There is no further need for priests and no further need for sacrifices.

Hebrews 7:17 For it is attested of him,
“You are a priest forever,
according to the order of Melchizedek.” NRSVCE

Jesus offers us His own Body and Blood on the cross. Jesus is our High Priest.

As to the Eucharist, Jesus realizes it is a "hard saying" and many disciples walked away. Listen to His words:

John 6:53-56 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Much of the liturgy is taken from the Bible. The Catholic Church not only chose the books of the Bible, but preached the Gospel, translated Biblical text into numerous tongues, and preserved Holy Scripture over all of these centuries. The Catholic Church has declared the Bible to be God-breathed--the Word of God. Catholics have used scholars from many religions, Jews, and non-Catholic Christians, etc. in order to accurately translate the Word of God. With over a billion Catholics and the Catholic Church in every country in the world it would be great folly to let each priest try and translate the liturgy into their own language. Look at the ideas that you have come up with because you did not have a proper knowledge of the original Biblical language. Why you just mentioned the Eucharist as being a "memorial," which it is, but you have your own ideas of what a "memorial" means in translated English while missing the nuances in the original Biblical text.

Interestingly, much of the Mass is taken from the Book of Revelation which is a very figurative book. We don't see it taken so much from the Book of Acts where early Christian worship was described. Organizations like the Wycliffe Bible Translators have translated the Bible into far more languages than the RCC and not at the behest of the RCC.

Even if derived from Scripture, the words themselves are not as important as the meaning behind them. So long as the meaning is preserved, the words may change when it comes to liturgies. Catholics love to recite the Lord's Prayer. It is a legitimate prayer and there is nothing wrong with praying it, but it was given by Jesus as a model prayer to teach the disciples how to pray. It is a blueprint for prayer and can be expressed in many different words. My point was that the liturgy itself did not need to be translated. It could be paraphrased in different languages without the priests having to be accomplished translators as the words are not what is sacred but the truths behind them. Prayers during the Mass are always read from an approved prayer book. The priest never prays in his own words. He goes to seminary so he can memorize the Mass and the prayers and even then has to read them lest he possibly get one word wrong. Words can change. Prayers can change. It is not the form but the substance that matters.

Memorials in the Bible are things like feasts, rocks set up at a special place, and other acts done to remember something God has done. That is the sense of memorial in the original Biblical text and translates as such into English.

Hebrews 7:17 For it is attested of him,
“You are a priest forever,
according to the order of Melchizedek.” NRSVCE

Jesus offers us His own Body and Blood on the cross. Jesus is our High Priest.

Yes, He is. Jesus, and Jesus alone. There are no other priests and we need no other priests.

As to the Eucharist, Jesus realizes it is a "hard saying" and many disciples walked away. Listen to His words:

John 6:53-56 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

JOHN 6
In v 14, is the account of Jesus feeding the 5000. In v 15, Jesus withdraws because He sees the crowd is intending to come and take Him by force and make Him their king. The next day the crowd pursues Him to Capernaum still seeking to make Him king. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, tells them to not work for food (i.e. earthly gain) but rather heavenly gain. He knows their pursuit of Him is because they see Him as someone who can deliver them from their hunger and their political oppression. In v 26 He plainly states that they seek Him "not because you saw signs, but because you ate loaves and were filled." It was not the miracles of God that made them follow Jesus but rather what He provided physically to fill their stomachs.

Jesus tells them to instead seek the "food that leads to eternal life" (i.e. not physical food but spiritual food). Not having understood the significance of the miracle, the crowd demands another sign. Still thinking with their stomachs, they relate the story of Moses providing manna in the wilderness. Jesus, showing He is greater than Moses and calling God "My Father" says that the true spiritual food is that which has come down from heaven, i.e. Himself.

This whole dialog is a contrast between the crowd who thinks only with their stomachs and what physical provisions Jesus can give them, and Jesus who keeps pointing them to the spiritual reality that it is not food they need (i.e. physical food) but rather Jesus Himself (i.e. spiritual food).

As Jesus told His disciples He would do, He speaks to the crowd in parables and metaphors. He now calls Himself the "Bread of Life." Unlike real bread, which eventually leaves the stomach and you hunger again, this bread - this spiritual bread, leaves you to never hunger again. It is not physical food and drink but spiritual food. Food here is a metaphor. Those who possess this food He will raise up on the last day. This food provides eternal life. Jesus came to bring eternal spiritual life, not eternal physical life.

At this point, the crowd begins to mumble. Now their unbelief shows. These are His townsmen. They know his parents. How could He have "come down out of heaven?" In vv 41-51, Jesus contrasts Himself as the "Bread of Life" with the manna their fathers ate in the desert. Alluding to his sacrifice on the cross, He says the bread He offers - the bread that will never leave you hungry - and is for the life of the world, "is My flesh." Jesus is speaking of His crucifixion. He is going to the cross to sacrifice Himself for the "life of the world." They are thinking of physical food. Jesus is talking about spiritual food.

Still spiritually blind the crowd begins to argue asking "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" They are thinking literally completely missing the spiritual truths Jesus is speaking. Rather than correct their errant thinking, Jesus presses the metaphor harder in vv 53-58. It is still a metaphor as is clear from the preceding verses. He is not talking about physically eating His flesh or drinking His blood. He is talking about abiding in Him through faith. That is our spiritual food which satisfies the needs of our souls while the manna only satisfies a physical need.

In vv 60-65, some of His disciples are disillusioned. They call Jesus' words "a difficult statement." Like the crowd, these disciples were not spiritually grounded. Jesus asked, "Does this cause you to stumble?" If what they found difficult and what was causing them to stumble was only that He said they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, He would not have said "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?" Part of what stumbled them was Jesus claiming to be greater than Moses and claiming to be the Son of God. Seeing Him "ascending to where He was before" would be proof of that and so He asks them what if they were to see that? Confirming that He was not talking literally about His flesh, He adds "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

He is making clear that He is not talking about literal food and drink. The flesh profits nothing. His words are spirit[ual] and give life (spiritual life). He concludes by saying "there are some of you who do not believe." These disciples were not true disciples. They were like the seed that fell beside the road and got choked out by the weeds. As v 65 implies, they had not been granted to Him by the Father as back in v 39 He said that he would not lose anyone granted to Him by the Father.

It is here, in John's account, that Jesus asks the Apostles if they too want to leave. To them, however, was granted spiritual insight and Peter answers that "You are the Holy One of God." They understood the metaphor. They knew Jesus was speaking of eternal spiritual life, not the filling of stomachs.

When understood in context, It is clear Jesus was not teaching that in communion we receive His body and blood through transubstantiation. Communion was not even mentioned. The Last Supper had not yet taken place. He was contrasting spiritual life in the Son with physical life the Jews sought in seeking to make Him their king. What the false disciples found hard was not a teaching on transubstantiation but rather Jesus' exclusive claims to being the only way to eternal life and that He came not to provide for their comfort and physical subsistence but rather for their spiritual life through his death. With the Twelve He did not explain transubstantiation to them. They understood He was using a metaphor.

 

[Valletta]

JOHN 6
In v 14, is the account of Jesus feeding the 5000. In v 15, Jesus withdraws because He sees the crowd is intending to come and take Him by force and make Him their king. The next day the crowd pursues Him to Capernaum still seeking to make Him king. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, tells them to not work for food (i.e. earthly gain) but rather heavenly gain. He knows their pursuit of Him is because they see Him as someone who can deliver them from their hunger and their political oppression. In v 26 He plainly states that they seek Him "not because you saw signs, but because you ate loaves and were filled." It was not the miracles of God that made them follow Jesus but rather what He provided physically to fill their stomachs.

Jesus tells them to instead seek the "food that leads to eternal life" (i.e. not physical food but spiritual food). Not having understood the significance of the miracle, the crowd demands another sign. Still thinking with their stomachs, they relate the story of Moses providing manna in the wilderness. Jesus, showing He is greater than Moses and calling God "My Father" says that the true spiritual food is that which has come down from heaven, i.e. Himself.

This whole dialog is a contrast between the crowd who thinks only with their stomachs and what physical provisions Jesus can give them, and Jesus who keeps pointing them to the spiritual reality that it is not food they need (i.e. physical food) but rather Jesus Himself (i.e. spiritual food).

As Jesus told His disciples He would do, He speaks to the crowd in parables and metaphors. He now calls Himself the "Bread of Life." Unlike real bread, which eventually leaves the stomach and you hunger again, this bread - this spiritual bread, leaves you to never hunger again. It is not physical food and drink but spiritual food. Food here is a metaphor. Those who possess this food He will raise up on the last day. This food provides eternal life. Jesus came to bring eternal spiritual life, not eternal physical life.

At this point, the crowd begins to mumble. Now their unbelief shows. These are His townsmen. They know his parents. How could He have "come down out of heaven?" In vv 41-51, Jesus contrasts Himself as the "Bread of Life" with the manna their fathers ate in the desert. Alluding to his sacrifice on the cross, He says the bread He offers - the bread that will never leave you hungry - and is for the life of the world, "is My flesh." Jesus is speaking of His crucifixion. He is going to the cross to sacrifice Himself for the "life of the world." They are thinking of physical food. Jesus is talking about spiritual food.

Still spiritually blind the crowd begins to argue asking "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" They are thinking literally completely missing the spiritual truths Jesus is speaking. Rather than correct their errant thinking, Jesus presses the metaphor harder in vv 53-58. It is still a metaphor as is clear from the preceding verses. He is not talking about physically eating His flesh or drinking His blood. He is talking about abiding in Him through faith. That is our spiritual food which satisfies the needs of our souls while the manna only satisfies a physical need.

In vv 60-65, some of His disciples are disillusioned. They call Jesus' words "a difficult statement." Like the crowd, these disciples were not spiritually grounded. Jesus asked, "Does this cause you to stumble?" If what they found difficult and what was causing them to stumble was only that He said they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, He would not have said "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?" Part of what stumbled them was Jesus claiming to be greater than Moses and claiming to be the Son of God. Seeing Him "ascending to where He was before" would be proof of that and so He asks them what if they were to see that? Confirming that He was not talking literally about His flesh, He adds "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

He is making clear that He is not talking about literal food and drink. The flesh profits nothing. His words are spirit[ual] and give life (spiritual life). He concludes by saying "there are some of you who do not believe." These disciples were not true disciples. They were like the seed that fell beside the road and got choked out by the weeds. As v 65 implies, they had not been granted to Him by the Father as back in v 39 He said that he would not lose anyone granted to Him by the Father.

It is here, in John's account, that Jesus asks the Apostles if they too want to leave. To them, however, was granted spiritual insight and Peter answers that "You are the Holy One of God." They understood the metaphor. They knew Jesus was speaking of eternal spiritual life, not the filling of stomachs.

When understood in context, It is clear Jesus was not teaching that in communion we receive His body and blood through transubstantiation. Communion was not even mentioned. The Last Supper had not yet taken place. He was contrasting spiritual life in the Son with physical life the Jews sought in seeking to make Him their king. What the false disciples found hard was not a teaching on transubstantiation but rather Jesus' exclusive claims to being the only way to eternal life and that He came not to provide for their comfort and physical subsistence but rather for their spiritual life through his death. With the Twelve He did not explain transubstantiation to them. They understood He was using a metaphor.

It is important to know that Jesus was the consummate teacher. Jesus often did speak to crowds in parables, but of course He often spoke literally. Jesus was not there to trick anyone, He would clarify when needed, such as with the woman at the well. And examination of the Bible shows crowds understanding when Jesus was speaking in parables or literally--there was no deceit in Jesus. When Jesus spoke of Himself as being a door, for example, the crowd did not ask “How can this man be made of wood?”

In John 6:50-53 the Koine Greek words used for “eat” are forms of phago. The Jews find the words of Jesus hard to believe:

In John 6:54 Jesus switches to a form of the word "trogein" or "trogo" for "eat." "Trogein" means to chew or to masticate—Jesus is emphasizing he means actual eating. In other words, when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them it is symbolic, does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh. Jesus would not let his disciples walk away because of a misunderstanding.

"The flesh" means things of the flesh. That is much different than Christ's true body and his true blood.

Paul understands the Holy Eucharist:

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[a] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[b] in the body of Christ? RSVCE

Indeed, the Last Supper, the first mass, has not yet taken place. Jesus links it to the Passover, where the lamb must be consumed in order for the Passover celebration to be complete. Jesus is the Lamb of God.

 

[JoeT]

You provided the answer yourself, "Jesus Christ is like us in every way except sin." He was not assigned the guilt of Adam's sin for if he had been He could not have been our propitiation. Sin is not a thing. It is not genetic. You don't get it from your mother or your father. You get it from being part of the fallen human race of which Jesus was exempted because he was like us in "every way except sin." Scripture nowhere says Mary was like us "in every way except sin." Jesus was sinless because He was the lone exception being fully divine. Mary did not have to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless. That He was genetically human enabled Him to die for our sins. You act as though sin or a sin nature is something genetic. It is a spiritual condition, not a physical condition. Jesus was fully God and fully human "except sin."

He is not a man, unless and except He is born of a New Eve.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

He is not a man, unless and except He is born of a New Eve.

JoeT

He is a man because He was born of a woman. Period. That woman does not need to be a "New Eve" for Him to be a man. Any man born of any woman is a man. Scripturally, no one is called the "New Eve." That is a Catholic invention and title. Just because Jesus is the "Second Adam" does not make Mary a "New Eve." Scripture associates the fall of mankind with Adam even though Eve also fell. It was a second or new Adam that was needed not a second or new Eve.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

It is important to know that Jesus was the consummate teacher. Jesus often did speak to crowds in parables, but of course He often spoke literally. Jesus was not there to trick anyone, He would clarify when needed, such as with the woman at the well. And examination of the Bible shows crowds understanding when Jesus was speaking in parables or literally--there was no deceit in Jesus. When Jesus spoke of Himself as being a door, for example, the crowd did not ask “How can this man be made of wood?”

It is clear Jesus is contrasting spiritual food with literal food after the feeding of the 5000. As I previously wrote, the Jews were ready to make Him king over a physical kingdom in which they believed their bodily needs and political freedom would be provided for. Jesus did not come to set up such a kingdom but to free them spiritually. He contrasts their earthly concerns with His spiritual provision which has nothing to do with literal eating and drinking.

In John 6:50-53 the Koine Greek words used for “eat” are forms of phago. The Jews find the words of Jesus hard to believe:

In John 6:54 Jesus switches to a form of the word "trogein" or "trogo" for "eat." "Trogein" means to chew or to masticate—Jesus is emphasizing he means actual eating. In other words, when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them it is symbolic, does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh. Jesus would not let his disciples walk away because of a misunderstanding.

"The flesh" means things of the flesh. That is much different than Christ's true body and his true blood.

"In v. 54 and again in vv. 56, 57, 58, the verb for ‘to eat’ becomes trōgō (as opposed to esthiō, or more precisely its aorist stem phag-, the customary verb found elsewhere in this passage). In earlier Greek, trōgō was used for the munching of (especially herbivorous) animals; from the classical period on, the verb was also used of human beings. Some have taken its presence here as a sign of the literalness of ‘eating’ that occurs in the eucharist. It is far more likely that John injects no new meaning by selecting this verb, but prefers this verb when he opts for the Greek present tense (similarly in 13:18)."

D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 296.

What you insist is a change of terms to intensify His meaning, others see as simply a preference in Greek verbs when using the present tense. To decide we must look at the greater context which, as I have explained, is contrasting their literal and earthly concerns with His spiritual and heavenly concerns which do not include eating and drinking. Those are but metaphors.

Augustine, often considered a father of the RCC, wrote:

‘figuratively he [Christ] is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally, and corporally he is only in heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead’.

D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 298.

As Augustine wrote, "really, carnally, and corporally he is only in heaven." He does not come down to us in bodily form during the Eucharist.

Paul understands the Holy Eucharist:

1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[a] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[b] in the body of Christ? RSVCE

Indeed, the Last Supper, the first mass, has not yet taken place. Jesus links it to the Passover, where the lamb must be consumed in order for the Passover celebration to be complete. Jesus is the Lamb of God.

You misunderstand Paul's words and their emphasis. The emphasis in Greek is not on participation in blood and flesh but on participation in communal remembrance.

we bless—"we," not merely ministers, but also the congregation. The minister "blesses" (that is, consecrates with blessing) the cup, not by any priestly transmitted authority of his own, but as representative of the congregation, who virtually through him bless the cup. The consecration is the corporate act of the whole Church. The act of joint blessing by him and them (not "the cup" itself, which, as also "the bread," in the Greek is in the accusative), and the consequent drinking of it together, constitute the communion, that is, the joint participation "of the blood of Christ." Compare 1Co 10:18, "They who eat … are partakers" (joint communicants). "Is" in both cases in this verse is literal, not represents. He who with faith partakes of the cup and the bread, partakes really but spiritually of the blood and body of Christ (Eph 5:30, 32), and of the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross (compare 1Co 10:18). In contrast to this is to have "fellowship with devils" (1Co 10:20). Alford explains, "The cup … is the [joint] participation (that is, that whereby the act of participation takes place) of the blood," &c. It is the seal of our living union with, and a means of our partaking of, Christ as our Saviour (Joh 6:53-57). It is not said, "The cup … is the blood," or "the bread … is the body," but "is the communion [joint-participation] of the blood … body." If the bread be changed into the literal body of Christ, where is the sign of the sacrament? Romanists eat Christ "in remembrance of Himself." To drink literal blood would have been an abomination to Jews, which the first Christians were (Le 17:11, 12). Breaking the bread was part of the act of consecrating it, for thus was represented the crucifixion of Christ's body (1Co 11:24). The distinct specification of the bread and the wine disproves the Romish doctrine of concomitancy, and exclusion of the laity from the cup.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

 

[JoeT]

He is a man because He was born of a woman. Period. That woman does not need to be a "New Eve" for Him to be a man. Any man born of any woman is a man. Scriptural, no one is called the "New Eve." That is a Catholic invention and title. Just because Jesus is the "Second Adam" does not make Mary a "New Eve." Scripture associates the fall of mankind with Adam even though Eve also fell. It was a second or new Adam that was needed not a second or new Eve.

Right you are this woman who was the New Eve, Mary. Otherwise, this thing you call god, isn't Jesus Christ who was God. Christ is one person who subsists in two natures, "being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high" [Hebrews 1:3]

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Right you are this woman who was the New Eve, Mary. Otherwise, this thing you call god, isn't Jesus Christ who was God. Christ is one person who subsists in two natures, "being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high" [Hebrews 1:3]

JoeT

I don't follow your logic. Mary did not have to be sinless for Christ to be. Sin or a sin nature is not a genetic or biological trait. Jesus was fully human and fully divine. He could be our representative, the "Second Adam", without Mary being sinless. You are putting a requirement on Mary that is not necessary. Her having sinned does not make Jesus any less divine. He did not get His divinity from Mary.

 

[Valletta]

Augustine, often considered a father of the RCC, wrote:

‘figuratively he [Christ] is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally, and corporally he is only in heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead’.

D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 298.

As Augustine wrote, "really, carnally, and corporally he is only in heaven." He does not come down to us in bodily form during the Eucharist.

Let's take these one at a time. I don't know of this Mr. Carson, but he does not accurately portray Augustine on the Holy Eucharist. It is sad he did not include other quotations from Augustine. There is much available from Augustine and I suggest you read for yourself ALL of what Augustine has to say on the Holy Eucharist. In case this comes up in the future, understand too that Church Fathers and saints have made great contributions to overall Church understanding, but while each believes in the formal teachings of the Catholic Church they all have their own ideas on matters which are or were not yet formally settled by the Church. Thus you will see, for example, different lists of the canon of the Bible from very holy people BEFORE the Church, the councils and the pope, decided formally on the canon in the late 300s. Don't expect Church fathers to all use the same wording to describe truths. Back to Augustine, of course the Holy Eucharist is spiritual, that is the point, but the Holy Eucharist is also the Body and Blood of Jesus as Jesus repeatedly tell us. Augustine in no way denies this because of the spirituality of this great mystery, to the contrary:

Saint Augustine:
"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

You should wonder why Mr. Carson did not include these quotations. From my perspective, having seen so many inaccurate portrayals of Catholic teaching, I could see these kinds of attacks on the liturgy should every priest come up with his own translation as you suggested. Are we clear now on Augustine?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Let's take these one at a time. I don't know of this Mr. Carson, but he does not accurately portray Augustine on the Holy Eucharist. It is sad he did not include other quotations from Augustine. There is much available from Augustine and I suggest you read for yourself ALL of what Augustine has to say on the Holy Eucharist. In case this comes up in the future, understand too that Church Fathers and saints have made great contributions to overall Church understanding, but while each believes in the formal teachings of the Catholic Church they all have their own ideas on matters which are or were not yet formally settled by the Church. Thus you will see, for example, different lists of the canon of the Bible from very holy people BEFORE the Church, the councils and the pope, decided formally on the canon in the late 300s. Don't expect Church fathers to all use the same wording to describe truths. Back to Augustine, of course the Holy Eucharist is spiritual, that is the point, but the Holy Eucharist is also the Body and Blood of Jesus as Jesus repeatedly tell us. Augustine in no way denies this because of the spirituality of this great mystery, to the contrary:

Saint Augustine:
"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)

"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST." (Sermons 272)

You should wonder why Mr. Carson did not include these quotations. From my perspective, having seen so many inaccurate portrayals of Catholic teaching, I could see these kinds of attacks on the liturgy should every priest come up with his own translation as you suggested.

I would suggest the church fathers were not all unanimous concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation and some even changed views. I realize their views are not official church doctrine. I still rest my case on what I have already written regarding transubstantiation.

I do not attend a liturgical-style church. I have nothing against liturgies although I am not so inclined. One danger in liturgies is that they can become almost an idol. The words become almost sacred such that any deviation from them is resisted. While there is a long history in some liturgies, the words are just words and not themselves sacred. There are other ways of expressing the same thoughts. There would be nothing scandalous in changing the words and that was what I suggested the priests could have done. Instead of translating the words into another language they would have paraphrased them in that language. No need for a translation. While it is important to say things correctly, there are many ways those things could be correctly said. However, if the RCC wants to keep using the same language that's their call. I personally see no reason every prayer has to be read from a book. I prefer spontaneous prayers from the heart.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

It would seem someone in this forum keeps reporting me to the site admin for expressing the view, or quoting others who express it, that questions the legitimacy of the Catholic faith. It is sad that we cannot discuss these things without reporting each other. I have had Catholics on this site tell me I am lost and without salvation for willfully rejecting the teachings of the RCC. I have never reported anyone for that. I understand the site rules though and will try and be more careful in the future. My latest posting of an article from John MacArthur was posted for comments he made about the Mass and I forgot that he expressed his beliefs on RC in other parts. It was not my intent to offend anyone. Personally, you can tell me anything you want and I won't take offense. We are discussing matters of eternal life and death and I would hope people can appreciate that and show a little tolerance for those who view things differently than ourselves. I would rather you tell me I am damned to hell than dance around it with less offensive words. I will take the straight talk anytime. That said, I will be more careful.

 

[Valletta]

I would suggest the church fathers were not all unanimous concerning the doctrine of transubstantiation and some even changed views. I realize their views are not official church doctrine. I still rest my case on what I have already written regarding transubstantiation.

I do not attend a liturgical-style church. I have nothing against liturgies although I am not so inclined. One danger in liturgies is that they can become almost an idol. The words become almost sacred such that any deviation from them is resisted. While there is a long history in some liturgies, the words are just words and not themselves sacred. There are other ways of expressing the same thoughts. There would be nothing scandalous in changing the words and that was what I suggested the priests could have done. Instead of translating the words into another language they would have paraphrased them in that language. No need for a translation. While it is important to say things correctly, there are many ways those things could be correctly said. However, if the RCC wants to keep using the same language that's their call. I personally see no reason every prayer has to be read from a book. I prefer spontaneous prayers from the heart.

I explained about the Doctors of the Church. Do you see how far off the portrayal of Augustine was by your Carson guy? You were the one who brought him up. These types of mis-portrayals by Carson and others seem endless to me and distract from legitimate discussion. As with the Bible, statements taken out of the context of the whole leading to misinterpretation. They must spend months scouring through statements trying to find something they can use. Personal prayer and a prayer life is essential, but the mass for Catholics is not a get together for personal prayer. The public liturgy is sacred for Catholics. We are in communion with the saints. Some of the early saints are mentioned by name in the liturgy , Apostles and the first three successor popes of Peter--Linus, Cletus, and Clement, and Saint Stephen (recall he was martyred) and others--all wonderful examples for us. Ultimately we are allowed to share in Christ's sacrifice. Jesus commanded us to "do this" so at least you should understand that Catholics are careful with the Eucharistic liturgy not to deviate from the instructions of Jesus. Sadly there have been Catholics influenced by the secular world who would have it otherwise.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I explained about the Doctors of the Church. Do you see how far off the portrayal of Augustine was by your Carson guy? You were the one who brought him up. These types of mis-portrayals by Carson and others seem endless to me and distract from legitimate discussion. As with the Bible, statements taken out of the context of the whole leading to misinterpretation. They must spend months scouring through statements trying to find something they can use. Personal prayer and a prayer life is essential, but the mass for Catholics is not a get together for personal prayer. The public liturgy is sacred for Catholics. We are in communion with the saints. Some of the early saints are mentioned by name in the liturgy , Apostles and the first three successor popes of Peter--Linus, Cletus, and Clement, and Saint Stephen (recall he was martyred) and others--all wonderful examples for us. Ultimately we are allowed to share in Christ's sacrifice. Jesus commanded us to "do this" so at least you should understand that Catholics are careful with the Eucharistic liturgy not to deviate from the instructions of Jesus. Sadly there have been Catholics influenced by the secular world who would have it otherwise.

Carson is not "my guy" and I have seen plenty of selective quotes from Catholic authors that say only as much as they want to highlight.

Protestants also "do this" but most of us believe communion is a memorial and do not hold to transubstantiation. We don't believe in "Saints" so naturally do not name them or pray to them. Our services are also not get-togethers for personal prayer. Aside from transubstantiation, the biggest difference I see is our focus on teaching the Word. Most Protestant services spend no less than 30 minutes on teaching from the Word and some far longer. My pastor goes book-by-book and verse-by-verse through the Bible. We are currently in the Book of Romans. My pastor goes in-depth. He explains the Greek, the historical background, the theology, etc. We believe in learning the Word of God in-depth and passages in context. We pray, we celebrate communion, but the biggest focus is on learning the Word. As Romans 12:1-2 says, the Word of God transforms us through the working of the Holy Spirit. That is why we take so much time to learn it. The main focus of the Mass is on the Eucharist because you believe you receive grace through it. You have 3 Scripture readings but the Homily barely scratches the surface in explaining them. Most Catholics never even open a Bible. Few know it. Even in these online forums most just quote Catholic Answers or some other Catholic apologist. Not saying all but the average Catholic does not know the Bible. I know as I grew up Catholic and have been around Catholics my entire life. It is not the emphasis of the RCC to see their members learn the Bible and be able to study it for themselves. They want their members to just believe what the church tells them it means and not test them as the Bereans tested Paul. Most Catholics I have known know more about their church than the Bible. Their focus is always on the church. Take away the church and most of them would be lost. We had one Bible in our house growing up and it was this over-sized Catholic Bible with lots of pages for writing down birthdays, first communions, etc. Never once did anyone open it and read it. Not once. That is until I did and then read it cover to cover four times. I did that on my own after praying to receive Jesus as my Lord and Savior (years after Confirmation). Then I did it because I longed to know what it said. No priest or nun or parent suggested I read the Bible. My Mom lived her entire life as a Catholic and never made it through the Bible once. I've lost track of how many times I have read the Bible and I mean the entire Bible. I don't mean that pridefully but to me that is natural. Why would I not want to be in the Word of God constantly? I love my church but my church is secondary to my personal relationship with Christ. My church does not mediate between me and God. I receive grace from God not my church. That is the major difference between Catholics and Protestants. You are all about your church.

 

[David Lamb]

I don't follow your logic. Mary did not have to be sinless for Christ to be. Sin or a sin nature is not a genetic or biological trait. Jesus was fully human and fully divine. He could be our representative, the "Second Adam", without Mary being sinless. You are putting a requirement on Mary that is not necessary. Her having sinned does not make Jesus any less divine. He did not get His divinity from Mary.

I agree. Anyway, if Mary had to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless, then Mary's parents would have had to be sinless for her to be sinless, so would her grandparents, her great-grandparents, and so on.