Showing posts with label Biblical Church=Catholic Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biblical Church=Catholic Church. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Ten Reasons the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus: a free, handy one pager for the New Evangelization




This free leaflet contains the key reasons of the great recent converts to the Catholic Church in one page: Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Steve Ray, Jim Akin, Tim Staples, Marcus Grodi, etc on how they found the real Jesus in his one true Church.

It is a tool for the New Evangelization summoned by Pope Francis.

Download the one-page leaflet here (Dropbox) or here (Scribd).
  

Ten Reasons the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus


while other Christian groups derive their elements of truth from her fullness


A one-page leaflet to support Pope Francis’ call for a New Evangelization that “all may come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4)  and to support Jesus’ prayer that “all may be one” (Jn 17:21)

Download the one-page leaflet here (Dropbox) or here (Scribd).


1. The Bible is a Catholic book.  It was Pope Damasus’ Council of Rome in 382 AD which drew up the official list of the books of the Bible. Thus, Luther felt “compelled to concede” that his Protestant Bible was “received” from the Catholic Church. All Christians today trust the authority of the Catholic Church that what they read is the true Word of God and not a false text.

2. The Bible refutes the “Bible alone” principle. The Bible says that the “Word of the Lord” is “spoken(Jer 25:3), not just written. St. Paul urged us to “hold to traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15).  The Bible also tells of a Council’s authority, where Peter settled a doctrinal dispute and declared what “we believe” (Acts 15).

The Bible teaches that not the Bible or the Protestant interpreters of the 16th century and of the present, but “the Church is the pillar and the bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). It also warns against “twisted” interpretations of Scriptures (2 Pt 3:16).  While the Church has one teaching, there are now 43,000 evangelical groups with 2.3 added daily. Their views on the Trinity, on gays, etc. contradict each other. Since truth (e.g. Jesus is God) cannot be falsehood at the same time, real falsehoods are sadly being taught among these groups.  

3. Jesus built his Church on a man he named Rock. Jesus said “On this rock, I will build my Church and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Mt 16:18-19). Jesus changed the name of Simon to Petros, Greek for Rock. He gave Petros or Peter, “the keys of the kingdom”, which the Jews knew to be the power of a prime minister of the King and chief teacher (Is 22:22).  Jesus told him alone to “feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17).  The Bible shows him leading the Church.

The early Christians referred to Peter’s Roman Church as “presiding” (Ignatius, 1st -2nd c.), “of superior origin” and standard of “true Faith” (Irenaeus, 2nd c.), “Chair of Peter”, “the principal” (Cyprian, 2nd-3rd c.), and “the primacy” (Augustine, 4th-5th c.). While the Catholic Church can give evidence of its unbroken link to Jesus and Peter, other Christian groups began their existence with their founders like Luther (1517), J. Smith (1830), and F. Manalo (1914).


4. Jesus and the Church are one.  It is not true the Catholic Church left the true Faith, since the Church is the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27), and he is inseparable from his body. He promised that “I am with you always(Mt 28:20), evil “shall not prevail” against his Church (Mt 16:18), and his Spirit “will guide you into all the truth (Jn 16:13).   He told his Church: “He who hears you hears me(Lk 10:16).

5. The Bible says we are saved “not by faith alone”.  The Bible used Luther’s phrase “by faith alone” only once: “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone(Jas 2:24).  The Bible also says that “what counts is faith working through love” (Gal 5:6).  While Catholics and Protestants agree that Jesus alone saves us, Luther in the 16th century inserted without basis the word “alone” in his German translation of Rom 3:28 (“a man is justified by faith”) in order to support his personal interpretation that a Christian is incapable of cooperating with God in his salvation.
 
6. The Bible and the early Christians believe in purgatory. As shown in their tombstones, the early Christians followed the Bible: “Pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins(2 Mc 12:46), for “nothing unclean can enter heaven” (Rev 21:27).   It does not make sense to pray for the dead if they only go, as evangelicals say, either to heaven (with faith in Christ) or to hell (without faith).  The Bible also spoke about forgiveness in the age to come (Mt 12:32) and those judged by God are “saved but as through fire(1 Cor 3:13-15).


7. The Bible and the early Christians believe in the Catholic sacraments. Jesus gave the Apostles the power to “forgive sins(Jn 20:23).   Peter taught that “Baptism now saves you(1 Pt 3:21) and thus is not a mere inciter of faith. The Bible speaks about “anointing the sick with oil(Jas 5:14-15), laying of hands (Acts 8:17; 2 Tim 1:6), and marriage in the Lord (1 Cor 7:39). Jesus repeatedly said that “he who eats my flesh has eternal life”. This is no figure of speech, for he did not give in when “many of his disciples” left due to this “hard saying” (Jn 6:48-68), and St. Paul taught that he who eats the bread unworthily is “guilty of profaning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor 11:28). Ignatius of Antioch said “the Eucharist is the flesh of the Redeemer,” Irenaeus “we receive the bread as our Redeemer”, and Cyprian “Christ is our bread”.

8. The Catholic Church is salt and light. Modern secular historians of science, economics, university education, human rights, international law, hospitals and Western art are showing that Catholic priests, scientists and thinkers were behind the foundation and great achievements in these areas, acting as salt and light as Christ foretold (Mt 5:13-14; Woods 2005).  In his Church, Christ works his miracles: Eucharistic bread turning into blood; appearances of Mary; heroic saints; cures and sacred images that are scientifically unexplained; saints with stigmata, powers of healing, bilocation and prophecy, and incorruptible dead bodies.

9.  The Catholic Church is catholic. Jesus “desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4), thus his real Church is universal, evangelizing in all parts of the world with more than 1.2 billion members today. Compare this with the 2nd biggest Christian group, the Easter Orthodox Churches with only 230M (1/5 of its size) mainly found in Eastern Europe; the Anglicans 85M (1/16); Southern Baptists 16.3M (1/73), Mormons 14.7M (1/81) and Iglesia ni Cristo 6M (1/200).

10. Jesus and the Bible glorify his mother. Catholics do not worship Mary, but follow Jesus’ ways. He obeyed the fourth commandment: Honor your father and mother. Honor in Hebrew is kaboda, which means to glorify. The Bible calls Mary “Mother of my Lord” (Lord = God) and says all generations will call her blessed (Lk 1:43.48). It shows that she is the New Ark of the Covenant, the woman clothed with the sun, crowned in heaven with twelve stars (Rev 11:19-12:1).  To honor his mother, Jesus’ last message to us on the cross is: Behold, your mother (Jn 19:27).

Download the one-page leaflet here (Dropbox) or here (Scribd).

====================
Notes.

These notes (which I will write little by little) are meant to support the brief arguments in the leaflet.

I invite our brothers in Christ to read with calm and great reverence the Word of God and the writings of the early Christians contained in the leaflet. Let us all exercise the contemplative spirit  and the humility of a creature, so that the accumulation of our subjective biases ("I think", "as I see it", "in my view") and our past readings of Biblical interpretation do not detract from the actual reality Jesus revealed. It is love for the truth that allows us to encounter the real Jesus: "Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice" (Jn 18:37). 

Some might say that any claim of a human organization to be the One True Church is arrogant and presumptuous, and that it can lead to imposing doctrines on others. Remember: Jesus said he is the Truth, and he is neither arrogant nor an imposer of beliefs. He also told his Church that the Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth and that they are supposed to love their neighbor as he loves them, i.e. with self-sacrifice unto death. 

Truth and love are not opposites.  As our parents and good teachers showed us with warmth and affection, teaching the truth even if it hurts is a service of love. Moreso, if the truth we teach is the Way of Love itself. This means not judging people, understanding their background, habits, and prejudices.

1. The Bible is a Catholic book.  In his Commentary On St. John,  Martin Luther said:  "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all."

The definition of the word Bible used here, as found in Webster's Dictionary, is the most widespread notion of the Bible: the Christian Scriptures, which contains both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old was written by Jews and the New by saints like St. Peter and St. Paul, St. Mark and St. James, St. John and St. Jude. The consolidation of the two Testaments into one Christian Scriptures --the Bible -- and the screening out of false, apocryphal "gospels" is the handiwork of the Catholic Church. 

It is this one Church that we trust when we trust the Bible to convey to us the Word of God.  


2. The Bible refutes the “Bible alone” principle. There are many articles refuting Sola Scriptura. A favorite is Dave Armstrong's A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura.


3. Jesus built his Church on a man he named Rock.  After detailed studies, many protestant Bible scholars have accepted this fact, as shown by Phil Porvasnik

After quoting them, Phil shows that they conclude that  "(a) Peter's name means Rock (petros or petra in Greek, Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic); (b) The slight distinction in meaning for the Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) was largely confined to poetry before the time of Jesus and therefore has no special importance; (c) The Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) by Jesus' day were interchangeable in meaning; (d) The underlying Aramaic Kepha-kepha of Jesus' words makes the Rock-rock identification certain; (e) The Greek word petra, being a feminine noun, could not be used for a man's name, so Petros was used; (f)  Jesus says "and on this rock" not "but on this rock" -- the referent is therefore Peter personally".


Jesus calls Peter “Satan” soon after giving him his new name. Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio explains: “Some have pointed to this as proof that Peter, and his papal successors, are not infallible as Catholics claim. But actually, this illustrates well what the Catholic Church teaches about the subject. For Catholic doctrine does not proclaim that the pope can never make a mistake in personal judgment. It is only when he fully engages his authority as successor of Peter speaking from Peter’s seat of authority (“ex cathedra”) that the Church guarantees him to be acting under the charism of truth given by the Father through the Spirit. When Peter publicly proclaimed “you are the Christ,” Jesus pointed out that this was not from him, but from the Father. When Peter privately said, “God forbid that you should suffer,” Jesus notes that the source of this was himself.”

4. Jesus and the Church are one. Anyone who tries to prove the so-called Great Apostasy of the Catholic Church would have to contend with Jesus' promises of continuous union with his body, the Church. To deny these would imply that Jesus is a liar who made false promises, and a powerless leader incapable to unifying his Church in faith and doctrine."It's inconceivable that he would permit his body to disintegrate under the attacks of Satan. The apostle John reminds us that Jesus is greater than Satan. (1 John 4:4)." (Patrick Madrid, In Search of the "Great Apostasy")

Supporters of the Great Apostasy would also need to contend with the Church Fathers who lived during the time of the alleged apostasy: "There is no mention in any of their writings of a great apostasy or any sort of battle for the faith on such a scale. Certainly, there are mentions of individual heretics and certain heretical movements, but there is no mention of any sort of total apostasy. Even if it is assumed that the Church Fathers were part of the apostasy it is likely that they would have mentioned it – even if just to condemn the “true” Christians! But there is no sign in the writings of the Church Fathers of this heresy, nor are there any other writings which support the notion. History is totally silent. History mentions the other great splits and schisms within the Church (such as the split between the Orthodox in 1054 and the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517) but about this alleged schism there is total silence." (Catholic Basic Training)






Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Top 10 Scriptural Passages pointing to the Catholic Church

From Scripture Catholic

The following is a list of my Top Ten Scripture passages which Protestants cannot adequately explain without embracing the teachings of the Catholic Church. This list could be extended to a Top 20, a Top 50, or a Top 100, but this list of 10 covers a lot of territory and can be easily comprehended before more extensive apologetics are entertained. The Top 10 list also provides an excellent introduction to Catholic teaching before the reader attempts to consume the more than 2,000 Scripture passages and analyses on this website.

Catholics should become well-versed in these passages so they are able to effectively witness to the truth of the Church. Protestants need to take these verses to heart as they challenge their own beliefs and investigate Catholic teaching. But both should remember that Catholic apologetics is not about being right or wrong. It is about sharing the fullness of the truth that Jesus Christ gave us through His Holy Catholic Church. I also believe that an analysis of these and the other verses on ScriptureCatholic.com demonstrate that the Catholic understanding of Scripture is almost always based on the plain meaning of the words used by the writer, the most reasonable of the various interpretations available, and the position that gives Jesus the most glory by demonstrating His infinite love and mercy for us.




Matthew 16:18-19 / Isaiah 22:22 (Authority)
1 Timothy 3:15 (Authority)
2 Thessalonians 2:15 (Tradition)
1 Peter 3:21 (Baptism)
John 20:23 (Confession)
John 6:53-58, 66-67 (Eucharist)
1 Corinthians 11:27 (Eucharist)
James 5:14-15 (Anointing)
Colossians 1:24 (Suffering)
James 2:24 (Works)

Authority

I. Matthew 16:18-19 / Isaiah 22:22

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

Most Protestants believe that "church" refers to the mass of Christian believers throughout the world, loosely connected to each other by their faith in the Bible alone. But these verses demonstrate that the "Church" Jesus Christ founded is not an invisible body of loosely-connected believers, but a visible and hierarchical institution built upon the person of Peter, who was given supreme authority, an office for dynastic succession, and the gift of infallibility. This Church can only be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In these verses, we see the following. First, Jesus builds His Church (“ecclesia”) upon the person of Peter. As we learned in the previous link on The Church, Jesus changes Simon's name to "Kepha," and says that on this "Kepha" He will build the Church. Kepha, in Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke), means a massive rock formation, and Jesus' use of Kepha to rename Peter signifies Peter's foundational leadership in the Church. (See also Mark 3:16 and John 1:42 where Jesus renames Simon "Cephas" which is a transliteration of the Aramaic "Kepha."). Only the Catholic Church recognizes and proves through an unbroken lineage of successors that her foundation is Peter.

Secondly, Jesus says the powers of death will never prevail against the Church. So even though Jesus appoints sinful human beings such as Peter to lead the Church, Jesus promises that hell will not prevail against her. Because the powers of hell refer to the supernatural, this must mean that the Church, although lead by sinful people, is divinely protected. Because she is so protected, the Church cannot lead the faithful into supernatural error. That is, she is unable to teach error on matters of faith and morals. This inability to teach error on faith and morals is called "infallibility" (it has nothing to do with the sinfulness of the Church's leaders, which deals with "impeccability"). If the Church were not infallible, the powers of death would indeed prevail over her sinful members. The consistent, 2,000 years of the Church’s teaching on faith and morals proves that Jesus has kept His promise.

Third, Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. While many Protestants think that the gift of the "keys" means that Jesus appointed Peter as the guardian of the gates of heaven, the "keys" actually refer to Peter's authority over the earthly Church (which Jesus often described as the "kingdom of heaven." Matthew 13:24-52; 25:1-2; Mark 4:26-32; Luke 9:27; 13:19-20, etc.) In the Old Davidic kingdom, the king had a prime minister on whose shoulder God placed the keys of the kingdom (Isaiah 22:22). Similarly, the new kingdom of Christ also has a prime minister (Peter and his successors) who is given the keys of the kingdom. The keys not only represent the authority the prime minister has to rule over God's people in the king's absence, but also the means of effecting dynastic succession to the prime minister's office (for example, in Isaiah 22:20-22, Eliakim replaces Shebna as prime minister in the Old Davidic kingdom). Only the Catholic Church claims and proves a succession of prime ministers (popes) all the way back to Peter, and this succession is facilitated by the passing of the keys of the kingdom.

Finally, Jesus declares to Peter that whatever he binds and looses on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. As in the Old Davidic kingdom, whenever Peter the prime minister opens, no one shall shut, and whenever he shuts, no one shall open. Jesus, therefore, gives Peter the authority to make decisions that will be ratified in eternity. In order for sinful Peter (and his successors through the passing on of the "keys") to make such decisions, he must be divinely protected. Once again, this evidences Jesus' gift of infallibility to the Church. Only the Catholic Church claims and has proven that her 2,000 year-old teachings on faith and morals, which have never changed, are infallibly proclaimed.




II. 1 Timothy 3:15

"If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

Most Protestants believe that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and no knowledge outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation. But then why does Saint Paul write that the Church, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is a powerful text that refutes the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) which erroneously holds that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth (a theory which cannot be found anywhere in the Scriptures). Instead, Saint Paul says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

This means that all the truth Jesus left us concerning faith, morality and our salvation flows from a living Church which, as we have learned, is built by Christ upon the rock of Peter and his successors. As the Catholic Church teaches, God has given us His truth in the form of the living word (written Scriptures and oral tradition) and the living teaching authority of the Church, endowed with the gift of binding and loosing. In fact, it is because the Church is the foundation of truth that we believe in the Bible. This is because the Catholic Church put the Bible together by determining which books were inspired and which books were not. The Church completed its selection of the "canon of Scripture" at the end of the fourth century. If the Catholic Church were not the pinnacle and bulwark of the truth, our belief in the Bible would be without foundation.

The Church's compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. As alluded to above, Protestants generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, they also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for our salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn't know this we could be led into error. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.

The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an "inspired table of contents." Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (interestingly, while Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church on most matters, they accept her authority in determining the New Testament canon of Scripture; we pejoratively call such picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject "Cafeteria Catholicism").

If I were a Protestant trying to prove sola Scriptura, and there was a verse that said "the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth," I would be proclaiming that verse from the roof tops. At the same time, if I were a Protestant, I would have to ignore 1 Timothy 3:15 to continue my protest of the Catholic faith.

To read the rest: Scripture Catholic

Monday, September 5, 2011

Bible and the Church: both or neither

Scott Hahn in Rome Sweet Home

I asked [the Harvard protestant theologian] to show me where the Bible taught sola scriptura. I did not hear a single new argument. Instead he posed a question to me. "Scott, if you agree that we now possess the inspired and inerrant Word of God in Scripture, then what more do we need?"

I replied, "Dr. Gerstner, I don't think that the primary issue concerns what we need; but since you ask the question, I'll give you my impression. Ever since the Reformation, over twenty-five thousand different Protestant denominations have come into existence, and experts say there are presently five new ones being formed every week. Every single one of them claims to be following the Holy Spirit and the plain meaning of Scripture. God knows we must need something more.

"I mean, Dr. Gerstner, when our nation's founders gave us the Constitution, they didn't leave it at that. Can you imagine what we'd have today if all they had given us was a document, as good as it is, along with a charge like 'May the spirit of Washington guide each and every citizen'? We'd have anarchy—which is basically what we Protestants do have when it comes to church unity. Instead, our founding fathers gave us something besides the Constitution; they gave us a government—made up of a President, Congress and a Supreme Court—all of which are needed to administer and interpret the Constitution. And if that's just enough to govern a country like ours, what would it take to govern a worldwide Church?

"That's why, personally, Dr. Gerstner, I'm beginning to think that Christ didn't leave us with just a book and his Spirit. In fact, he never mentions a thing about writing to his apostles anywhere in the Gospels; besides, fewer than half of them even wrote books that were included in the New Testament. What Christ did say—to Peter—was, 'Upon this rock, I will build my Church . . . , and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.' So it makes more sense to me that Jesus left us with his Church—made up of a Pope, bishops and councils—all of which are needed to administer and interpret Scripture."

THE PRIMARY ISSUE

Dr. Gerstner gave a thoughtful pause. "That's all very interesting, Scott, but you said that you didn't think it was the primary issue? What, then, is the primary issue for you?"

"Dr. Gerstner, I think the primary issue is what the Scripture teaches about the Word of God, for nowhere does it reduce God's Word down to Scripture alone.

Instead, the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is to be found in the Church: her Tradition (2 Th 2:15; 3:6) as well as her preaching and teaching (1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:20-21; Mt 18:17). That's why I think the Bible supports the Catholic principle of sola verbum Dei, 'the Word of God alone', rather than the Protestant slogan, sola scriptura, 'Scripture alone'."

Dr. Gerstner responded by asserting—over and over again—that Catholic Tradition, the Popes and ecumenical councils all taught contrary to Scripture.
"Contrary to whose interpretation of Scripture?" I asked. "Besides, Church historians all agree that we got the New Testament from the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, both of which sent off their judgments to Rome for the Pope's approval. From 30 to 393 is a long time to be without a New Testament, isn't it? Besides, there were many other books that people back then thought might be inspired, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul. There were also several New Testament books, such as Second Peter, Jude and Revelation, that some thought should be excluded. So whose decision was trustworthy and final, if the Church doesn't teach with infallible authority?"
Dr. Gerstner calmly replied, "Popes, bishops and councils can and do make mistakes. Scott, how is it you can think that God renders Peter infallible?"
I paused for a moment. "Well, Dr. Gerstner, Protestants and Catholics agree that God most certainly rendered Peter infallible on at least a couple of occasions, when he wrote First and Second Peter, for instance. So if God could render him infallible when teaching authoritatively in print, then why couldn't he prevent him from errors when teaching authoritatively in person? Likewise, if God could do it with Peter—and the other apostles who wrote Scripture—then why couldn't he do it with their successors as well, especially since he could foresee the anarchy that would come if he didn't? Besides, Dr. Gerstner, how can we be sure about the twenty-seven books of the New Testament themselves being the infallible Word of God, since fallible Church councils and Popes are the ones who made up the list?"

I will never forget his response.

"Scott, that simply means that all we can have is a fallible collection of infallible documents!"

I asked, "Is that really the best that historic Protestant Christianity can do?"
"Yes, Scott, all we can do is make probable judgments from historical evidence. We have no infallible authority but Scripture."

"But, Dr. Gerstner, how can I be certain that it's really God's infallible Word that I am reading when I open up Matthew, or Romans, or Galatians?"

"Like I said, Scott, all we have is a fallible collection of infallible documents."

Once again, I felt very unsatisfied with his answers, though I knew he was representing the Protestant position faithfully. I sat there pondering what he had said about this, the ultimate issue of authority, and the logical inconsistency of the Protestant position.

All I said in response was, "Then it occurs to me, Dr. Gerstner, that when it comes right down to it, it must be the Bible and the Church—both or neither!"

Eat my flesh

By T.L Frazier

I see that the first Christians "devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles and to the communal life,, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers'- (Acts 2:42)."Obviously, "the breaking of the bread and to the prayers" (Greek: taiklasei ton artou kai tais proseuchais) was something other than the traditional Baptist after-church potluck hosted by the Ladies Auxiliary. This verse, along with Acts 20:7, says that the Lord's Supper, or Eucharist in Greek (literally "to give thanks," as in John 6:23), was a central part of Christian Sunday worship described in the New Testament. "Why wasn't it a part of ours?" I wondered. This thought really plagued me.

One afternoon I was reading the Gospel of John when something Jesus said caught my attention for the first time. It contained graphic eucharistic language: "I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever,- and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world....

"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 [Greek: trogon] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats [trogon] my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds [trogon] on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats [trogon] this bread will live forever" (Jn. 6:48-_£8).

The normal Greek verb meaning "to eat" used throughout this passage, phagon, is suddenly replaced by literally to crunch or gnaw. The real, corporal function of eating is obviously being stressed. Also, the tense of the verb trogon implies a continuous consumption of the body and blood of Christ.

So as death was introduced by eating the forbidden-fruit, now life is restored by eating the "bread of life," that is Christ's flesh. I knew the Catholic Church taught that the bread and the wine used in celebrating the Last Supper became the real body and blood of Christ. Professional anti-Catholic Jack Chick had disclosed as much to me in his coming books in which he lampoons the Eucharist as the "Cookie Christ." While it's easy to ridicule the Eucharist, I saw that this passage in John was best understood in light of the ancient Catholic belief.

1 Corinthians 5:7-8 came to mind where Paul says, "For indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast." As the Lord's Supper is the only "feast" Christians celebrated, this implied a regular celebration of the Eucharist as the New Testament Passover, the Passover being a ceremonial meal the Israelites had to eat in order to be saved from "the destroyer" which killed the first-born among the Egyptians (Ex. 12:1-42).

Recalling that in Acts 2:42; 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 11:20-21, the Christians used to celebrate the "breaking of the bread and the prayers" whenever they met, I became even more uneasy. Could Catholics possibly be right? Could the Eucharist be the normative Christian worship where, as Jesus said, "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life," saving us from the "destroyer?"

I found the import of1 Corinthians 11:27-32, that those who fail to discern "the body and blood of the Lord" in the Eucharist would eat and drink condemnation upon themselves, refuted the Baptist dogma that the actual body and blood of the Lord were not to be discerned in the Eucharist. In fact, if the Eucharist were merely a "symbol" lacking efficacy, Paul's stern warning to the Corinthians concerning its improper observance seemed incomprehensible: "That is why many among you are ill \ and infirm, and a considerable number are dying." What other Christian "symbol" ever carried the death sentence for its ill treatment?

Moreover 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 says that our communion, or fellowship (Greek: koinonia}, in the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is the basis for the Church's own koinonia—each member of the Body of Christ being at one with each other (cf. Rom. 12:4-5 and 1 Cor. 12:12-26). Certainly our fellowship with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist couldn't be less real than our fellowship with one another, especially, as St. Paul says in this passage, if the Eucharist is the very basis for the Church's fellowship.

If the Church as the Body of Christ isn't merely a symbolic koinonia, then the Eucharist as the Body of Christ couldn't be merely a symbolic koinonia either.

To uphold the Fundamentalist position, one must maintain that the Church itself is only symbolic like the Eucharist. But could a merely symbolic Church be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matt. 5:13-16)? The thought was absurd.