How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

The Liturgist · Saturday at 9:38 PM

Amo2 said:
We believe Michael was the pre-incarnate Christ,

Which is a problem, since it directly clashes with John 1:1, which declares that Christ before His incarnation was the divine Logos.

Indeed, there is no direct scriptural evidence in support of the idea that St. Michael and our Lord are the same person, nor did anyone in antiquity believe as much.

And there are several problems with such an interpretation within the context of the Hebrew and Greek language.

Amo2 said:
Apart from the above, I seem to recall many years ago while examining the writings of the "Church Fathers", I found that some or at least one of them believed Michael the archangel to be Christ as well.

Actually, the earliest record we have of a written Adventist document claiming that Jesus Christ was St. Michael the Archangel was in fact written by Ellen G. White, and the first writing of hers I am aware of that made this claim was Desire of Ages (1898) , although this is also a bit of a red herring since I never suggested the doctrine originated with her. Indeed Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, now better known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who like many early Adventists but unlike Ellen G. White teach that Jesus Christ is a created being, published a similar doctrine fifteen years before Desire of Ages.

Now, regarding the early church fathers, none of them taught that Jesus Christ was St. Michael - on this point you are entirely mistaken. Some early church fathers associated with the Catechetical School of Alexandria used typological-prophetic rather than literal-historical hermeneutics when interpreting the Old Testament, for example, Origen, and it is possible you came across an example of a church father describing St. Michael’s appearances in the Old Testament as a type of Christ in the same manner that Melchizedek the King was viewed as a type of Christ, along with other figures including, but not limited, to St. Isaac the Patriarch, St. Joseph the Patriarch, St. Moses the Prophet, St. Joshua, St. Elias (Elijah) the Prophet, St. David the King, St. Solomon the Prophet, St. Samuel the Prophet, St. Jonah the Prophet, St. Ezra the Priest, the Three Holy Children in the furnace, and many others, but this typological prophecy, which forms part of the basis for the selection of prophecies of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ our True God sung at the Vesperal Divine Liturgy, and until 1955, at the Paschal Vigil Mass, on the morning of Great and Holy Saturday, when the Orthodox observe the Sabbath commandment to the fullest extent possible by worshipping Christ and partaking of His Body and Blood in memory of His repose in the Tomb following His re-making of humanity in His own image on the Cross, as the New Adam, the day previously, in anticipation of His glorious resurrection on the all-luminous and all-holy Pascha so appropriately called Sunday in the English language, in which we join with our Catholic brethren and all traditional Protestants in celebrating the creation of the Universe, and that Christ our Lord has Risen, and the descent of the Holy Spirit.

Amo2 said:
The main problems with your above assertions are of course, that they have and continue to be highly contested, and are in fact not well scripturally supported.

There’s nothing to contest. 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 explicitly command the role of Tradition.

As for your anti-Eucharistic argument, it suffers from six logical fallacies, which I shall address in the following post.

The Liturgist · Saturday at 10:06 PM

Amo2 said:
The quoted and emphasized words of Christ above conclusively state our exact sentiments concerning our Holy Communion services. All priesthoods or ecclesiastics set up for the purposes of supposed transubstantiations, are of extra biblical teaching, practice, or institution. Nothing in any of the scriptures you referred to rather than quoted, contradicts the spiritual application of our Lord being the bread of life, or the New Covenant being established with and by the blood of Jesus. To the contrary, these spiritual truths fulfill many Old Covenant types and symbols, as addressed in some of the scriptures you referred to.

There are six major logical fallacies in your argument:

First, it begs the question. It assumes from the outset that sacramental theology and sacramental priesthood are “extra-biblical” without first proving that assertion. That assumption is then used as a premise to dismiss the very thing under discussion. This is circular reasoning, not evidence.

Second, it builds a straw man. It lumps together all Eucharistic traditions—Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant—as if they all equally subscribe to a scholastic definition of transubstantiation. But Eastern Christians, for example, rarely use that term, and many Protestants (such as Confessional Lutherans) believe in the Real Presence without adopting a specific metaphysical formulation. Misrepresenting the diversity and nuance of Christian Eucharistic theology makes it easier to reject—but only by misrepresenting what others actually believe.

Third, the argument makes a category error by treating spiritual meaning and sacramental reality as mutually exclusive. This is like saying Christ cannot be both God and man, or that baptism cannot be both a sign and a means of grace. The New Covenant often deepens the ontological reality of what the Old Covenant foreshadowed; fulfillment does not abolish reality.

Fourth, it presents a false dichotomy: that either the Eucharist is symbolic, or it depends on some fabricated priesthood. But Christianity has long held that the Eucharist can be both deeply symbolic and ontologically real. Insisting on a binary choice ignores the depth and consistency of Christian tradition.

Fifth, it appeals to silence. It claims that nothing in the quoted or referenced Scriptures contradicts your symbolic view of communion. But the absence of an explicit contradiction is not the same as positive proof. Arguments from silence are only persuasive when the silence is unnatural—which is not the case here.

Finally, the use of loaded language—phrases like “supposed transubstantiations” and “ecclesiastics set up”—adds rhetorical heat but no logical force. These emotionally charged terms presuppose corruption without proving it.

Of these fallacies, the third—a category error—may be classified as a syntactic or formal semantic fallacy, since it misapplies ontological categories in a way that undermines theological reasoning at its root. The others—equivocation, strawman, false dichotomy, circular reasoning, and petitio principii—are best described as semantic or rhetorical fallacies. While not formal in the technical sense, they are equally serious in their misuse of meaning, presumption, or framing.

Each of these fallacies significantly undermines the force of your argument. Regardless of where one stands on the doctrine of the Real Presence, it is impossible to engage that question meaningfully when the argument presented misrepresents the opposing view and proceeds by flawed logic.

If you wish to continue this conversation constructively, the next step must be to address the actual Eucharistic doctrines of those who affirm the Real Presence—rather than caricatures of those positions—and to do so with arguments free of logical fallacy.

boughtwithaprice · Sunday at 11:28 AM

Amo2 said:
No. God has not left the greater part of humanity without the benefit of instruction and salvation to be found in holy scripture in dead languages few if any still speak. He raised up translators, individuals and institutions, suited to this exact purpose. Today we have many translations to compare, not to mention many easily accessible lexicons, and Greek, Hebrew, or other language dictionaries suited to exactly study the original languages you speak of. If in fact God has not preserved His word by such means for us to understand, then don't worry be happy and enjoy what ever free for all you choose. We are all on our own or at the mercy of some who would lord themselves over us, and in fact have no responsibility toward God, who has not even considered it important to preserve a knowledge of His will for the average person. To the contrary -

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

God has preserved and provided his word in the various languages of the differing peoples of earth, though many have and do try to prevent such.

The bible is the most translated book

The Bible: The Most Translated Book in the World When it comes to books that have left a profound…

thefactbase.com

Yes the Bible has been translated, but to rely solely on the translation without study of the original language is to rely on men rather than God.

God gave us a Church not a book. Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. 1Tim3:15 This is inline with sabbath teaching. God creates then He rests.

Jesus built His Church and sealed it with the Holy Spirt in 33AD. The Bible has been translated and manipulated numerous times in that span. The Church has remained intact.
God inspired men by the Holy Spirit to write scripture, and the Holy Spirit guards His Church intact since the same 33AD.

The many that have tried and do try to prevent God’s word are those that deny the Sabbath. They say instead that God was incompetent to build His Church and allowed it to become apostate, and He needed the special talents of special men to do His work for Him, but there is no record either inside or outside scripture to say He would do that.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. His teaching remains intact since 33 AD

I cannot give belief to a group that claims to honor the sabbath and denies it at the same time. A group that demands I follow the teaching of men rather than God.
You claim logic from scripture to say that there is no hell. Jesus warned of hell. What is to fear from the sleep of death? If death is sleep there is no difference between the just and the unjust. Atheists believe that already. Eternal separation from God who created you is a greater fear. Separated not because He rejects you, rather a soul in hell has rejected God, denied His creative power and proclaimed Him unjust to rule His kingdom. It is eternal separation, not sleep which no one fears.
SDA cannot even take a stance on abortion. The direct murder and blood sacrifice of children is ok, because decisions are so difficult. What nonsense is this? Killing babies is ok but don’t dare eat pork or even meat for that matter. Breakfast cereal was promoted by SDA named Kellogg to supposedly reduce a man’s libido, as meat eating allegedly induces sexual desire. Really? Where in scripture does Christ teach that? Our Lord said it is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, rather the behavior that comes out.

Where is your consistency in scriptural translation? SDA love to say that Jesus denied the blessedness of His own mother by translating Luke 11:28 as “on the contrary” instead of the correct translation of “yes, rather”
Mary is the promised enemy of Satan Gen 3:15.
Her flesh is beautiful, but her profound beauty is in her obedience. “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to your word”
Why does the Bible need to be mistranslated to prove your point?

Translations do matter and your inability to admit that we should consider the original language of the Bible instead of a translation far removed from the original is telling. Do you wish to keep the original words of Gods from reaching the ears of men?

You need to do more research for your book instead of using confirmation bias from those that agree with you. That mode of argument is not scholarly. It deceives the user to think one is right when he could be mistaken

The Liturgist · Sunday at 11:13 PM

boughtwithaprice said:
Where is your consistency in scriptural translation? SDA love to say that Jesus denied the blessedness of His own mother by translating Luke 11:28 as “on the contrary” instead of the correct translation of “yes, rather”
Mary is the promised enemy of Satan Gen 3:15.

Interesting. Not only is such a translation as they suggest wrong and contrary to the clear meaning of the Greek but also contradicts other verses in the same Gospel, and in the Gospels of St. Matthew and of St. John, and prophetic verses about the Theotokos in the Old Testament.

It is also obviously Nestorian and antidicomarian (one of the two Mariological errors enumerated by St. Epiphanios, along with the opposite error of Collyridianism - the Collyridians worshipped our lady, whereas the antidicomarians refused her veneration and denied her perpetual virginity). Both extremes are obviously wrong.

David Lamb · Monday at 1:15 AM

Valletta said:
God hears all prayers. That Jesus gave an example of addressing God the Father in prayer does not mean that all prayers must be so.

My point was that with the obvious exception of reports of prayers addressed to false gods, all prayer in the bible is addressed to God.

Valletta · Monday at 6:02 PM

David Lamb said:
My point was that with the obvious exception of reports of prayers addressed to false gods, all prayer in the bible is addressed to God.

Except for the angels I have mentioned. Of course Heaven wasn't opened up to the saints in OT times, nor for part of the NT, and I have mentioned angels being addressed in Psalms. But it is in the Bible that we are to pray for one another, and we ask others to pray for us. Certainly that cloud of all those witnesses, all of those saints, should not be excluded. There is nothing in the Bible that says they should be excluded. We are in communion with the saints.

boughtwithaprice · Monday at 7:59 PM

David Lamb said:
My point was that with the obvious exception of reports of prayers addressed to false gods, all prayer in the bible is addressed to God.

All prayers are addressed to God. The Catholic Church does not pray to Mary and the saints as separate deities apart from God.
We honor them and ask for their prayers on our behalf. They each have achieved a relationship with God to which we aspire, and in the case of Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, will never reach.
We are not praying to them as we pray to God. It is an act of humility to their position with God that we ask prayers from them. They do not distract us from God or steal His glory. They draw us closer to Him and help us in our spiritual battle here on Earth.
Mary is fully human, and closer to God than any human can be, without actually being God. God came into the world through her body, no one else can claim that.
She is the promised enemy of Satan who will crush the head of the serpent. We are not enemies of Satan. We have fallen victim to his temptations and have become slaves to sin. It is only by the blood of Christ that we are set free. Mary is the enemy of Satan as she never fell victim to his temptations, and Satan hates her.
Genesis 3:15 is clear. There will be enmity between Satan and the woman. Not competition not friendly rivalry, not disinterested coexistence, enmity. Satan hates her and will do anything to diminish her or erase her from existence. Revelation tells us that he will release all the waters of the Earth in order to attempt to swallow her up.
According to Revelation 12, Satan makes war with Mary and her seed which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. We are her seed, therefore she is the mother of the Church. Why would a Christian say anything against her or look down on her? Those that do are unknowingly doing the bidding of Satan.
Catholics did not make this up. It’s all right there in scripture for you to see. Mary is who she is because God made it that way, not us.
Mary’s role is foreshadowed in the relationship of Jacob and Rebecca his mother. Jacob was the child whom God loved, and he had to be prepared to receive the blessing from Isaac by his mother. The same way, by our acts of humility toward Mary prepare us to receive the promises of Christ.
We are commanded to honor our father and our mother. Do we then claim to honor Jesus by asking Him to dishonor His mother? God forbid!

Yes all glory and honor belongs to God, but His choice was to come to Earth through Mary, and His word says that her seed keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ
We honor God by contemplating her for who she is. Song of Songs 6:9 ask who is she that breaketh forth like the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array? If we are beloved disciples, God’s word also tells us Behold thy mother.

David Lamb · Tuesday at 1:06 AM

Valletta said:
Except for the angels I have mentioned. Of course Heaven wasn't opened up to the saints in OT times, nor for part of the NT, and I have mentioned angels being addressed in Psalms. But it is in the Bible that we are to pray for one another, and we ask others to pray for us. Certainly that cloud of all those witnesses, all of those saints, should not be excluded. There is nothing in the Bible that says they should be excluded. We are in communion with the saints.

Yes, and I remember answering you, saying that the Psalms are not talking of praying to angels. If they were, then the Psalms would also encourage us to pray to the sun, moon and stars:

“Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light!” (Ps 148:3 NKJV)

Also, asking others to pray for us is not the same thing at all as praying to them.

boughtwithaprice · Tuesday at 6:16 AM

David Lamb said:
Yes, and I remember answering you, saying that the Psalms are not talking of praying to angels. If they were, then the Psalms would also encourage us to pray to the sun, moon and stars:

“Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light!” (Ps 148:3 NKJV)

Also, asking others to pray for us is not the same thing at all as praying to them.

I believe that you are misreading the Psalms. We do not use them as an excuse to pray to the sun, moon and stars. It is a shout of joy to God, as they are the work of His hands. .His works declare His magnificence. They are not the source of it

You are correct in that asking to pray and "praying to" are two different things. We do not pray to Mary and the saints, we ask them to pray
can you give an example to the contrary?

The Ave Maria begins with direct quotes from the gospel of Luke and ends with a request that Mary pray for us. Do you consider this praying to, or asking to pray?

Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum (Hail Mary, Full of grace, the Lord is with you) Luke 1:28
Benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Jesu (blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus) Luke 1:42

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae Amen
(Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen)

David Lamb · Tuesday at 7:27 AM

boughtwithaprice said:
I believe that you are misreading the Psalms. We do not use them as an excuse to pray to the sun, moon and stars. It is a shout of joy to God, as they are the work of His hands. .His works declare His magnificence. They are not the source of it

I am sorry, but you have misunderstood what I wrote. I was replying to Valetta, who had said that the psalmist was praying to angels. I meant by my reply that the psalmist was no more praying to angels than he was praying to the sun, moon and stars.

boughtwithaprice said:
You are correct in that asking to pray and "praying to" are two different things. We do not pray to Mary and the saints, we ask them to pray
can you give an example to the contrary?

Not sure what you mean by "an example to the contrary." I would ask you to show me where in the bible do we read of Christians praying, or being taught to pray, to other Christians who have already died and gone to heaven? Paul, in some of the epistles, asks his Christian readers to pray for him. However, I cannot think of one instance in the bible of a Christian communicating in any way with a Christian already in heaven.

boughtwithaprice said:
The Ave Maria begins with direct quotes from the gospel of Luke and ends with a request that Mary pray for us. Do you consider this praying to, or asking to pray?

Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum (Hail Mary, Full of grace, the Lord is with you) Luke 1:28
Benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Jesu (blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus) Luke 1:42

Well, I would say that part is praise, which is an aspect of prayer.

boughtwithaprice said:
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae Amen
(Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death, Amen)

That part is asking a believer already in heaven to pray for "us". As I have said, I find no evidence at all in the bible for such a practicwe.

The Liturgist · Wednesday at 3:22 PM

David Lamb said:
If they were, then the Psalms would also encourage us to pray to the sun, moon and stars:

That’s a non-sequitur.

The Liturgist · Wednesday at 3:26 PM

David Lamb said:
Well, I would say that part is praise

But the praise aspect is directly from the Gospel of Luke, and is thus divinely inspired.

Also, all of the ancient liturgical churches along with Martin Luther and all Evangelical Catholic Lutherans and Anglo Catholic Anglicans, who as substantial parts of the third and fourth largest churches, outnumber several Protestant denominations, do ask for the intercession of the Theotokos.

caffeinated.hermit · Wednesday at 3:52 PM

The Liturgist said:
But the praise aspect is directly from the Gospel of Luke, and is thus divinely inspired.

Also, all of the ancient liturgical churches along with Martin Luther and all Evangelical Catholic Lutherans and Anglo Catholic Anglicans, who as substantial parts of the third and fourth largest churches, outnumber several Protestant denominations, do ask for the intercession of the Theotokos.

Library : Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary

Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary Dave Armstrong, a convert to Catholicism, demonstrates Martin Luther's deep devotion to Mary. Luther praises Mary in many of his writings, even proclaiming his belief in her perpetual virginity and the Immaculate Conception. He also says that Mary is the...

www.catholicculture.org

David Lamb · 2025-08-21T02:11:29-0500

The Liturgist said:
That’s a non-sequitur.

Not so, in my view. Psalm 148 has the psalmist saying "praise Him" to angels, sun, moon and stars:

“2 Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! 3 Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light!” (Ps 148:2-3 NKJV)

Valetta had said that the psalmist was praying to angels. If that is so, he seems also to have been praying to sun, moon and stars, and of course he wasn't.

The Liturgist · 2025-08-21T05:08:44-0500

David Lamb said:
Not so, in my view. Psalm 148 has the psalmist saying "praise Him" to angels, sun, moon and stars:

“2 Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! 3 Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light!” (Ps 148:2-3 NKJV)

Valetta had said that the psalmist was praying to angels. If that is so, he seems also to have been praying to sun, moon and stars, and of course he wasn't.

Psalm 148 is not the only Psalm which exhorts angels to praise God.

Of course there is plenty of other Scriptural support for seeking the intercession of the saints including the angels. In the Eastern Orthodox Church we venerate all the bodiless powers on the feast known as the Synaxis of the Holy Archangels and Other Bodiless Powers on November 8th, which is directly comparable to Michaelmas, which the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate celebrates on September 29th along with the other three traditional angelic feasts, of the Guardian Angels, of St. Gabriel and of St. Raphael.

David Lamb · 2025-08-21T05:18:45-0500

The Liturgist said:
Psalm 148 is not the only Psalm which exhorts angels to praise God.

Of course there is plenty of other Scriptural support for seeking the intercession of the saints including the angels. In the Eastern Orthodox Church we venerate all the bodiless powers on the feast known as the Synaxis of the Holy Archangels and Other Bodiless Powers on November 8th, which is directly comparable to Michaelmas, which the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate celebrates on September 29th along with the other three traditional angelic feasts, of the Guardian Angels, of St. Gabriel and of St. Raphael.

I know that there are other psalms mentioning angels praising God. But that doesn't affect the matter, because there are psalms other than Psalm 148 which make mention of natural phenomena praising God. For example:

“Let heaven and earth praise Him, The seas and everything that moves in them.” (Ps 69:34 NKJV)

But the psalmist wasn't asking the angels or the seas to pray for him. Where is the "plenty of other Scriptural support for seeking the intercession of the saints including the angels?" I cannot think of a single verse where somebody requests prayer of an angel or a Christian already in heaven. There are plenty of examples of Christians on earth requesting prayer of other Christians on earth.

boughtwithaprice · 2025-08-21T05:35:45-0500

David Lamb said:
Not so, in my view. Psalm 148 has the psalmist saying "praise Him" to angels, sun, moon and stars:

“2 Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! 3 Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light!” (Ps 148:2-3 NKJV)

Valetta had said that the psalmist was praying to angels. If that is so, he seems also to have been praying to sun, moon and stars, and of course he wasn't.

The Psalm is calling all the works of creation to praise God. It is as Jesus rode on a donkey into Jerusalem to cries of Hosana and the scribes told Him to quiet the crowd. If they were quieted, the rocks and stones themselves would sing
I do not know how you interpret this as praying to the Sun, moon and stars

David Lamb · 2025-08-21T05:47:05-0500

boughtwithaprice said:
The Psalm is calling all the works of creation to praise God. It is as Jesus rode on a donkey into Jerusalem to cries of Hosana and the scribes told Him to quiet the crowd. If they were quieted, the rocks and stones themselves would sing
I do not know how you interpret this as praying to the Sun, moon and stars

Sorry but you have misunderstood my post (probably my fault). I certainly was not interpreting the psalm as praying to sun moon and stars. I was answering Valetta, who had implied that the psalm was an example of praying to angels. I was saying that IF the psalmist was praying to angels, then he was also praying to sun moon and stars. In other words, I was disagreeing with Valetta's idea that the psalm included prayer to angels. I hope that is a little clearer. Apologies again for the confusion.

Postvieww · 2025-08-21T06:55:47-0500

Just a question for my Catholic friends. My current circle of friends in the neighborhood I now reside Many were were raised in Catholic schools. Three separate people non related and from different areas of the country when ask if the Bible was ever used in Catholic school , all three said no. I find this shocking. Could someone please explain how this can be in church schools under the umbrella of the Catholic Church? All three seem to have no knowledge of a personal relationship with Christ or what is involved in being born again. What were these people actually exposed to?

Valletta · 2025-08-21T08:10:08-0500

Postvieww said:
Just a question for my Catholic friends. My current circle of friends in the neighborhood I now reside Many were were raised in Catholic schools. Three separate people non related and from different areas of the country when ask if the Bible was ever used in Catholic school , all three said no. I find this shocking. Could someone please explain how this can be in church schools under the umbrella of the Catholic Church? All three seem to have no knowledge of a personal relationship with Christ or what is involved in being born again. What were these people actually exposed to?

The Catholic Church teaches that all Catholics are born again through the sacrament of Baptism and are initially saved through Baptism so the concept of being "born again" would typically not come up in school:

Peter 3:20-21 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. RSVCE

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is heavily based on the Bible, if you go through it you will see how heavenly referenced is the Bible.
The intimate relationship we have with Jesus is through prayer and through the Holy Eucharist:

I. The Eucharist - Source and Summit of Ecclesial Life

1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."134 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."135

Part Two Section Two The Seven Sacrements Of The Church Chapter One The Sacraments Of Christian Initiation Article 3 The Sacrament Of The Eucharist I. The Eucharist - Source And Summit Of Ecclesial Life

www.vatican.va

The books of the Bible are considered differently than you think of them. In the early centuries there were differences in what books could be used for readings at the mass, and through a long process that spanned centuries the 73 books of the Bible were chosen and decided upon in the late 300s. Thus the books of the Bible are liturgical books. Most of those texts are used as readings at the Catholic mass where the priest would typically give a homily on a reading or readings. An average Catholic doesn't memorize those books by chapter and verse.

How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Legend

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Believer

Well-Known Member

I. The Eucharist - Source and Summit of Ecclesial Life​

Similar threads

I. The Eucharist - Source and Summit of Ecclesial Life