If a devout Christian from the year 1000 A.D. were to be dropped into mid-morning service at a 21st century church, the Christian faith would not be recognizable to the medieval Christian, says Kevin Kelly in the latest issue of Willow magazine - a publication of the influential Willow Creek Community Church.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> church > General
Portrait of Christianity in the Next 1,000 Years
By
Audrey Barrick
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Feb. 09 2008 06:30 AM EST
[-] Text [+]
Comments
Christ is not continually put to death, and I want to make something very clear. As Catholics we do not believe that Jesus dies again and again and again in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the altar. We believe, rather, that this is an un-bloody sacrifice. It doesn't mean that he is being killed, only without any bloodshed. It means that he is not being killed at all. It means that Jesus Christ, raised in heaven and glorified, continually presents himself to the Father in a perfect sacrifice, the once for all sacrifice. The sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ was once for all and he sat down at the right hand. Now when somebody takes that to mean that there is no longer any continuation of his sacrifice, they run into problems because in Revelations 5, verse 6, we see a difficulty. John in his vision of the heavenly throne room is told to look and he will see the Lion of the tribe of Judah who is conquered. He looks expecting to see a royal figure. The lion is a royal figure of the tribe of Judah which is David's tribe, and so he expects to see a king. Instead, it says in Revelations 5, verse 6, "He turned and beheld a lamb, looking as though it had been slain in the center of the throne." Jesus Christ was sacrificed on the Cross, raised from the dead and yet that resurrected body bears the wounds; ascended into heaven and glorified so that those wounds are not removed but glorified; so that when we behold our King in heaven at the right hand of the Father, what does he look like? A lamb, looking as though he had been slain. Why? Because the Passover Feast continues on into eternity. Christ is priest and victim. He is the Passover Lamb. No wonder St. Paul can say in 1st Corinthians 5, verse 7"Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed for us, therefore, let us keep the feast." What feast? The Eucharistic Banquet, the covenant Passover. But why? Because sacrifices are never complete until the sacrificial victim is consumed! It's the consuming of the victim that really signifies the purpose and goal of the sacrifice, because God ordained and commanded sacrifices in the Old Testament for sin, but not simply to kill animals. What happened to the animals after they were slain? They were eaten because to have that meal, to share communion is the purpose and goal of the sacrifice. It signifies the restoration of family bonds, because who do you eat your meals with? Family members. So the ultimate, final stage of a sacrifice is communion. Back in Egypt, 1400 years before Jesus, if you had sacrificed the Passover lamb and sprinkled his blood on your doorpost to preserve your firstborn son, and then you went to bed and that's all you did, you would wake up in the morning and your firstborn son would be dead, because you had to eat the lamb. You had to commune upon the victim. You had to consume the sacrifice. You had to eat the lamb!!!!!!!
Every Jew in the audience thinks of Leviticus. Oh no, you don't eat flesh. If you eat flesh and if you drink blood, you are cut off from your kindred, according to the Old Testament law of Moses. "So the Jews then disputed among themselves saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'" So does Jesus say, "Well stop, guys, it's just a teaching device. It was just a little illustration to help get a point across." No, He ups the ante; He intensifies their crisis of faith. 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."
That's the first thing he says. Then he states it a second way: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day." Then he says it a third way: "For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed." And then to top it off, he has to say it a fourth time: "He who eats my flesh," and that word in the Greek means chew, munch down on my flesh, "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him." I can almost feel the dizziness of the Jews in the audience, and many of his disciples when they heard it said, "This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?"
They don't say, "Well, who can understand it?" They don't say, "Who can believe it?" They say, "We can't even stand to listen to it. That's how offensive it is." But Jesus, knowing himself that his disciples murmured at him and at the saying, said to them, what? "Oh guys, come on, come on. Relax. It's just a metaphor, just a symbol, just a sign." He doesn't say that, does he? He says, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
What is Jesus meaning? He is saying, "Look, I am not saying here is my arm. Why don't you guys just stand in line and take a bite." Right? Well, what is he saying? He is saying that it's the Spirit that gives life and so my flesh and my blood are not quite ready for the communion meal. When will they be? When the Spirit takes the Passover Lamb in the tomb and revives and resurrects and glorifies and infuses the fullness of the infinite Holy Spirit to that flesh and to that blood, so that Christ's flesh and blood is perfectly united to the eternal spirit of God. At that point, Christ's flesh and blood will not be mere flesh and blood. It's the Spirit that gives life. The flesh alone is of no avail.
"The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." What does he mean? The words that Christ speaks are what cause his flesh and his blood to be transformed. Those words are spoken over bread and wine and that is what causes the great communion meal to take place.
Based on what is happening outside US in Asia and Africa Christianity is booming. Currently 1/3 of world population is Christians, 1000 years from now it'll be 50%
I think that the title of this article should read "Portrait of Religion in the Next 1,000 Years". Because true Christianity will not change. It may become a minority behind false teachings and cults, but it will never change.
God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. He also states, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission” – Hebrews 9:22. The Mass is a repetitive bloodless sacrifice that is not supported by scripture and again, Christ died ONCE for the sins of the world.
THE BIBLICAL PURPOSE
Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 shed even more light on this matter:
"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:23-24
When Jesus said, "Take, eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest such is ridiculous. He was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross.
Notice how that verse ends: "...this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment. The same is true of Christ's blood:
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:25
Jesus Himself taught the same lesson to his disciples at the Last Supper:
"And he (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and
brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19
The Eucharist:
Though this one verse does appear to teach transubstantiation, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said:
"... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." John 6:33-35
This teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body. The Lord goes on to further clarify:
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." John 6:40
Again, Jesus points out that eternal life comes through believing in Him. When the Lord's disciples murmured at His words, Jesus explained:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63
Jesus was talking spiritually, not physically. He was explaining that spiritually, all life comes through faith in Him, not eating His body.
Nowhere else in the Bible does God endorse transubstantiation. In fact, God forbids the practice:
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis 9:4
"... No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." Leviticus 17:12
If the Lord tarries:
There will still be those who have not bowed down to Baal. A people strong in faith who know that Jesus is the “only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15).
Unfortunately, there will be those who will continue to serve and bow before false gods, statues, pictures, and even a false goddess known as the “Queen of Heaven.”
Quecat,
Don't be afraid of being too bold. The timid will not prevail. And amen to your comment "Who are we who wear the full armor of God and wield the Sword of Spirit, if not warriors? "
That is right on the bulls eye! I wish more Christians would realize that we are warriors in a spiritual battle for our souls.
We are the spiritual warriors of God, on the offensive to tear down the kingdom of darkness. So that the Kingdom of God can be built up in us, and in His children. Praise Him.
Thanks for confirming that for me brother.
hehe - I wrote that very thing at first (re: our onslaught), but then backtracked and erased it wondering if it were too bold.
I'm glad to hear that it appears the same to another. Who are we who wear the full armor of God and wield the Sword of Spirit, if not warriors?
I guess that goes right along with my belief that we (Christians) should be an offensive spiritual army that should be going into the very realm of hell to wage war, and the gates will not be able to prevail, or overcome, our onslaught.
..."Gates of Hell would not conquer the church..."
This one drives me nuts. Gates never attacked anything.
Gates are a purely defensive device.
prevail - "katischuo" - to be superior in strength. meaning: not even the gates of Hades, than which nothing was supposed to be stronger, shall surpass the church in strength.
(Thayer's Lexicon)
RBB, one can also interpret scripture to fit their respective agenda.......
Yes, Scripture is the inerrant word of God. Further, I believe all of scripture can be summed up with a single word: Jesus. Through it, we find our nourishment and strength and it is a method by which our Lord speaks to us.
Jon,
Thanks for your response again. I do not believe however that the situation is comparable to that of the atheist. I have taken communion, and I too have been nearly brought to tears at the greatness and meaning in it. What I mean to say is that the Bible does not afford a literal interpretation of transubstantiation, perhaps you could force the interpretation, but it does not come easily. If you showed a man a Bible who had not been given the idea before, and had him read the four Gospels, and then asked him what the verse meant, I very seriously doubt he would naturally come to the conclusion that it means that Christ will afford His actual flesh and blood as a long drawn out sacrifice.
If the Lord tarries:
There will still be those who preach truth, and know that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).
Unfortunately, there will still be those who give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4). Who will be spoiled through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Col 2:8).
Intrigued - What about when the tradition goes against the teaching of God's Word? Or when things are made up wholesale. This is the problem with going with tradition/scripture over scripture alone. You can make up anything you want.
Do you believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God?
Sorry I meant note! Thank you for you note Chris! :)
Thank you for your not Chris. Have you ever tried explaining the power of the Holy Spirit to a militant atheist before? You and I know how incredible the power of the Holy Spirit is to the believer. But to an atheist who never experienced such an incredible act will always think you’re insane! How can you explain the spirit to someone who is unwilling to believe in such a transcendent mystery? God calls us to have faith to experience the power of God and if atheists are unwilling to believe then they will never know truth of the Lord because of there refusal!
The Eucharist has the same power and mystery!!! In fact words cannot express the over flowing grace that comes from receiving the Lord through communion. But how can I explain to you if you’re unwilling to believe in the power of the bread of life? I can’t, because it’s the same scenario as I mentioned above.
The most humbling experience in my life is when I receive my Lord’s body and blood. His death, resurrection and love over power me to the verge of tears. Remain open brothers and do not be like the unbelieving Jews. John 6:52-56 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
I will say no more and will I continue to pray on your behalf that the Master will open your eyes and see the truth! You and I can reason theology for the rest of our lives but like everything else faith has to be a personal experience to understand the Lord’s fullness. The Catholic Church is not perfected by man; the Catholic Church is perfected by Jesus Christ who promised that he would never leave us or forsake us! He also promised that the Gates of Hell would not conquer the church! I believe in that promise and no false prophet will lead me astray because I put all of my faith, hope and charity in Christ the Lord. The Master leads and I will follow.
God Bless,
Jon Matthew Greenier
Oh and by the way, it is night now where I am =O)
Thanks for the response Jon,
And I understand that. What I am saying is that Jesus literally calls Peter satan. Now if when Jesus says, "Take eat, this is my Body" then we are to literally think of that Bread as His actual Body, then it would only make sense that when Jesus calls Peter satan, that Peter would actually be satan incarnate and the tempter of all men's souls. Of course the second is not true, so the first is not necessarily true. Peter could have only been representing the goals of satan, just like the Eucharist could just be representing the Body of Christ. It does not have to be, but it is possible. We have to think about exactly what is being said, how it was intended, and the context it was written in. The Last Supper was eaten before Christ even died, so how was the bread and wine His Blood and Body? If my understanding is correct, the Catholic church says that somehow it became His Blood and Body, before the sacrifice had even been made. This seems to stretch what was meant, to an extreme nearly untenable.
Matthew16:24-25 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save his life[h] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.
Eleven of the twelve blessed Apostles all followed Christ to the cross and were martyred for their Master to choose the cross then there own lives including Peter!!! In the end Peter and the Apostles gave their lives for us.
John 15:12-14 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command.
Thank you Peter and the Apostles for your sacrifice for us and our Master Lord Jesus Christ!
Good morning Chris, that's really not the topic that we are discussing at the moment but if you insist! That is true. Peter was acting on his human emotions rather then trusting in the Lord that he had to suffer greatly. I think most of us probably would have said the same thing to Christ if we heard that he going to die horribly. If you love someone you never wish to see them suffer!
Later in Rome Peter and Paul both showed there unwavering beliefs in there Master when Paul was beheaded. Peter told the Romans that he was not worthy to die like his master so he was crucified upside down. These men loved Christ! You should admire what they have done for our church rather then try to disgrace them by there human faults.
Let's see John, by your logic, Christ called Peter satan at one point... so you must believe that Peter was actually satan incarnate? Am I correct?
John 6: 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
The Orthodox and Catholic church both believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And it's sad that devout Christians like your self are allowing your bias of the Catholic Church to receive the Lord. I will pray for you brother.
The early Christians broke bread Acts 2:45-47 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
The Romans used to think the early Christians were cannibals because they would hear about the Christians eating the flesh of Christ.
The Eucharist is the special nourishment for the souls of the Christian believers and is accepted only through pure faith in the Lord. St. Paul rebuked anyone who received the Eucharist without being in the state of grace.
To understand the mysteries of the Eucharist you must first understand the Melchizedek order and the relations of the passover lamb. Christ is in the order of the Melchizedek and he is also the passover lamb. Shed for the sins of all mankind and offering a pure offering to the Lord God.
I could never reject the body of my savior and I'm shocked to hear other Christians who do! What biblical support do you have for your position! The New Testament seems to favor mine if you believe in the literal intrepretation! Which I thought most Protestants believed in the literal intrepretation of the bible. Or do you pick which one best fits you?
Peace
Intrigued: “What is proved here is no authority or unity is present when left up to individual interpretation.”
And are we suppose to think that the Roman Catholic Church is unified? Maybe in the since of the popery having the last word. There are many Catholics that disagree with core teachings of Rome. The presumption that the pope is right and that settles it, is not Scriptural on any account. Just because he has the political power does not presume that he speaks for God nor does it imply that he interprets God’s Word correctly.
Tradition has its place, but the Word of God stands true regardless.
Intrigued: “many of the orthodox beliefs of Christianity such as the Trinity, the full divinity and humanity of our Lord, etc. were hashed out by early Church fathers in light of early heretical teaching.”
Correction: It was in light of sola scriptura.
I gotta be honest, when folks start citing sola scriptura as their authority and using terms such as "scriptural unity" in light of the posts on this board, I gotta laugh. What is proved here is no authority or unity is present when left up to individual interpretation.
RBB, to answer your question from a couple of days ago, I can't speak for anyone besides myself, but I don't bifurcate the authority of the church and scripture. Both compliment one another and are proven resources for the faithful. For example, many of the orthodox beliefs of Christianity such as the Trinity, the full divinity and humanity of our Lord, etc. were hashed out by early Church fathers in light of early heretical teaching. Again, such Church fathers had to denounce heretical writings that our secular world so quickly likes to introduce as "authoritative" (i.e. The Gosple of Thomas, Judas, etc.). While at the same time, the author of scripture is the Holy Spirity and is given to us as a gift for learning, correction and inspiration.
I formerly believed sola scriptura, however after 30+ years listening to such arguments as we see on this board, I had to search futher.
I don't know what translation you are reading from or whose articles you are copy-pasting, but here are a few items that you've quoted that you should take a second look at:
Zech 9:15,16 NASB actually reads as follows:
"The LORD of hosts will defend them. And they will devour and trample on the sling stones; And they will drink {and} be boisterous as with wine; And they will be filled like a {sacrificial} basin, {Drenched} like the corners of the altar. And the LORD their God shall save them in that day as the flock of his people: for they [shall be as] the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land."
Curious that chapter of scripture prophesying Israel's rejection of her coming King and her eventual restoration has now been misquoted as an argument for the saints drinking blood to be saved!!?? I would take it then, that you're also a proponent of Replacement Theology since you are claiming for yourself promises made to Zion?
Heb 13:15,16
"...therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name... for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."
This seems pretty straightforward to me. The sacrifice of praise is the fruit of lips, giving thanks to His name. There is nothing here about eating anything as a form of worship!
In Psalm 51 it says "...Sacrifice and offering you take no delight in but the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. And a broken spirit and a contrite heart thou would not despise". David is speaking as a spiritual sacrifice being a broken spirit before the Lord.
So the spiritual sacrifices that we offer to God are our praises unto Him, coming before Him with a broken heart, offering our praises to God.
Continued: 1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.
1 Cor. 11:26 - Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.
1 Cor. 10:21 - Paul's usage of the phrase "table of the Lord" in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase "table of the Lord" to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase "table of the Lord" in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.
Heb. 13:10,15 - this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.
Continued: Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.
Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.
Heb. 13:15 - this "sacrifice of praise" refers to the actual sacrifice or "toda" offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.
1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer "sacrifices" to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.
Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord's blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a "living sacrifice" to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ's sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.
1 Cor. 10:16 - "the cup of blessing" or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.
1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.
The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus' One Eternal Sacrifice; it's Not Just a Symbolic Memorial
Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek's bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus' offering.
Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus' words of consecration is "touto poieite tan eman anamnasin." Jesus literally said "offer this as my memorial sacrifice." The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.
In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.
Lev. 24:7 - the word "memorial" in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is "azkarah" which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus' instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a "memorial offering" demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.
Num. 10:10 - in this verse, "remembrance" refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus' command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.
Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus' command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.
"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70)
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)
""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ TYPIFIED, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian)
Transubstantiation is as much an assault against scripture and the earliest apostolic traditions of the church, as it is an assault on reality and common sense. It is not taught in scripture, the language of the church up to 200 AD unequivocally rejects transubstantiation. They not only taught the symbolic view, they defeated the Gnostics on the basis of the symbolic view.
Transubstantiation also illustrates a classic case of failure of church tradition to be a standard bearer of doctrinal unity and divine truth. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are bitterly divided to this very day over the Eucharist, both claiming their own "church tradition" is the correct one.
Sola Scriptura leads us to the symbolic view, which is in keeping with Christ and the earliest post-apostolic tradition.
FullGospel -
Yes Jesus founded one church, the one that all believers belong to, not the Catholic church which is a denomination. He did give us one set of beliefs, that are found in His Word. Indeed Timothy's congregation was part of the "the Church", it simply wasn't Catholic, at that point the "Catholic" church didn't exist yet. There is not one bit of proof in God's word to support that idea.
Peter and Jesus (and Timothy and Paul for that matter) all agree on what they taught. It's simply that the Catholic church doesn't teach the same things. If you think they do perhaps you can point out in the Bible where you find worship (or even "veneration") of idols or dead saints, the idea of saint's being anything other than all believers, worship of Mary, Mary's assumption bodily into heaven, purgatory, indulgences and redemption by works, Peter leading the church, the church at Rome being the central authority, the continual sacrifice of communion....well that's a good start.
I must say, I am glad to hear that you reject Mary as a "Co-mediatrix".
You said "He didn't leave us a Bible." Let me ask you a simple yes or no question. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
Council of Ephesus - "We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
Cyprian of Carthage - "He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage - "After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Augustine - "I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . 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" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
Apostolic Teaching - True Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.
Catholicism - True Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.
Biblical References - Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, John 6:35,41,51-58, 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.
Theodore of Mopsuestia - "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]). Ignatius of Antioch
Justin Martyr - "We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Clement of Alexandria - "’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian - "[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Origen - "Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Food for thought! :)
http://www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/catholicism/closer_look_at_transubstantiation.htm
An excellent look at this dogma.
As many of you who've heard me speak on these posts know, there is not much I agree with when it comes to the Catholic faith.
But I will say this, it seems that the Eucharist is nothing different than taking communion in the Protestant faith. Christ commands us to honor the breaking of His body and the shedding of His blood until He comes again. And when I partake of the communion I remember His sacrifice for me, so that I NEVER forget the price He paid. I am not crucifying Him again. I am remembering and honoring the greatest gift ever given to me. And I believe that is how many Catholics believe too, when they take the eucharist.
Christ's atoning work is not a continuing, mystical activity tied to a weekly ritual; it was a one-time historical event. The results of that work are eternal, and Christ's sacrifice was decreed from eternity, but the reality of that finished work is best represented by an empty cross!!
There is great disagreement among lay-level Roman Catholics as to whether their church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ is an ongoing act that literally occurs in the Mass. For those who would like documentation, the Council of Trent ("On the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass") could not be more clear: "And since in this divine Sacrifice which is performed in the Mass, that same Christ is contained in a bloodless sacrifice who on the altar of the cross once offered himself with the shedding of his blood: the holy Synod teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.... For there is one and the same victim, now offering through the ministry of the priesthood, who then offered himself on the cross; the only difference is in the method of the offering."
For more modern sources, look at the Baltimore Catechism: "The Mass continues the Sacrifice of the Cross. Each time the Mass is offered, the Sacrifice of Christ is repeated. A new sacrifice is not offered, but by divine power, one and the same sacrifice is repeated."
Marantha!
The Eucharist (CCC 1322–1419)
Once we become members of Christ’s family, he does not let us go hungry, but feeds us with his own body and blood through the Eucharist. In the Old Testament, as they prepared for their journey in the wilderness, God commanded his people to sacrifice a lamb and sprinkle its blood on their doorposts, so the Angel of Death would pass by their homes. Then they ate the lamb to seal their covenant with God.
This lamb prefigured Jesus. He is the real "Lamb of God," who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Through Jesus we enter into a New Covenant with God (Luke 22:20), who protects us from eternal death. God’s Old Testament people ate the Passover lamb. Now we must eat the Lamb that is the Eucharist. Jesus said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you" (John 6:53).
At the Last Supper he took bread and wine and said, "Take and eat. This is my body . . . This is my blood which will be shed for you" (Mark 14:22–24). In this way Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, the sacrificial meal Catholics consume at each Mass.
The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross occurred "once for all"; it cannot be repeated (Heb. 9:28). Christ does not "die again" during Mass, but the very same sacrifice that occurred on Calvary is made present on the altar. That’s why the Mass is not "another" sacrifice, but a participation in the same, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
Paul reminds us that the bread and the wine really become, by a miracle of God’s grace, the actual body and blood of Jesus: "Anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27–29).
After the consecration of the bread and wine, no bread or wine remains on the altar. Only Jesus himself, under the appearance of bread and wine, remains.
."this do in remembrance of me." Greek: "anamnesis" - which is remembering or recollection,
NOT reenactment of his sacrifice or crucify afresh - "anastauroo".
Heb 10:10 "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE"
Heb 10:12 "But this Man, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God;"
Heb 10:14 "For by ONE offering he hath perfected FOR EVER them that are sanctified."
We are commanded to NOT "anastauroo" or crucify afresh:
Heb 6:6 (Heb6:4 "For it is impossible for those...") "If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame.
Christ's atoning work was finished on the cross! (John 19:30) Greek:"teleo" -to do just as commanded, and generally involving the notion of time, to perform the last act which completes a process, to accomplish, fulfill.
..It IS finished!
Praise the Lord Jesus Christ who sits and reigns at the right hand of the Father forevermore!
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35
There may be variatiions in the Christian world, but His Word, and the truth therein, will remain unchanged. What was a sin 2000 years ago, will be a sin 2000 years from now. What was the way to salvation 2000 years ago, will be the only way to salvation 2000 years from now.
People may preach and believe a "different Christianity" in the future, but it will be false and they will burn in judgement. Cursed are those who change the Word of God into a lie. His Word is eternal. It does not change.
If the Lord tarries…
The church will still be preaching that Christ was sacrificed once and for ever, and not over and over and over again:
“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool” (Heb 10:12, 13).
“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb 9:28)
The commandments are not from men but from Christ Lord.
John 6:51-59 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
The Eucharist is no man made tradition!!!
If the Lord tarries:
There will still be the truth that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Ti 3:16, 17).
In addition, there will still be falsity, as men continue to preach vain traditions and teach for doctrines the commandments of men (Mk 7:7).
Jesus Christ ushered in the reign of the new church that supercedes the old. Matthew 12:6-7 6I tell you that one[a] greater than the temple is here. Mark 14:58 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' The resurrection of Jesus Christ on third day brought the new seed of the church to light. Since that day the church has been in the world teaching the gospel of Christ for nearly 2000 years in perfect succession. Many attempts have been made to bring the Church to destruction but as governments collapse and the world continue to change the church remains the same spreading love, mercy and charity for all who seek Christ. “As his armies were swallowing up the countries of Europe, French emperor Napoleon is reported to have said to Church officials, "Je détruirai votre église" ("I will destroy your Church")." When informed of the emperor's words, Ercole Cardinal Consalvi, one of the great statesmen of the papal court, replied, "He will never succeed. We have not managed to do it ourselves!" If bad popes, immoral priests, and countless sinners in the Church hadn't succeeded in destroying the Church from within, Cardinal Consalvi was saying, how did Napoleon think he was going to do it from without?”
The Catholic Church will always remain the same as it has been for the last 2,000 years; unaltered and not giving into heresy! Jesus promised the Church would never fail and I believe in that promise... In 3,000 A.D. my brothers will still be breaking the bread and giving thanks to the Lord God with perfect unity with the Bishop of Rome.
Also, though I find the physical splits whithin the Church dissapointing, and inherently wrong, I would like to say that there is amazing cohesivness as well. The vast majority of protestant "denominations" agree on the fundamentals, and there is only a superficial difference. Nonetheless they all believe they are connected in Christ.
What I posted was,
I am particularly fond of many aspects of the Catholic church, however there are several reasons why I cannot accept it as the one True Church. First of all, there are too many inconsistincies in the Catholic church. Popes declare previous popes as anti-popes, standards and regulations undergo drastic changes, and certain recent popes have even kissed the Quran, a book which states clearly that Jesus is not the Son of God, He is not God, and He is not the only way to heaven. Secondly, it could be said that a "good" Catholic of 1000 years ago would be considered "bad" by the standards of todays Catholic church, and a "good" Catholic of today would be considered "bad" by the standards of the Catholic church of 1000 years ago. Indeed the Catholic church of today has become more like the Protestant church as of late than of the Catholic church of yesterday. And Jesus clearly laid down the foundations of the True Church in the declaration of faith by Peter, which was that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. Clearly it was this faith which was the basis of the Church.
Again I do say that I particularly like many things about the Catholic church, but due to these inconsistincies I cannot accept them as the unified true Church.
And to the coward who flagged my comment before, I will continue to post this each time you do so. Why don't you speak out and give your reason?
Who flagged my post below!? This is incredible, I was asking a question in honesty and stating a simple opinion. I cannot believe the cowardice and gall of the person who did it. Please reveal yourself and your reasons so I can defend my position. It is amazing to me that we cannot even express basic opinions and questions on this post anymore!
FullGospel - Actually when people read 1 Timothy 3:15 I would expect they will read it in context and see that it's Paul telling Timothy that if he is delayed in coming that the preceding verses are directions for him in pastoring his church.
RBB: Jesus founded one church, not 40,000 conflicting versions of "church." He gave us one set of beliefs, one faith. Eph. 4:5 Timothy's local congregation was part of Jesus' one church.
It's funny that you should bring up this book. I can't help but notice that one of the things Paul is teaching Timothy about is prayer..see chapter 2:1-8, in particular vs 5 "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus."
The mediating he is talking about is mediating a new covenant, Hebrews 9:15 "for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant."
My friend in Christ, when you introduce someone to the Gospel, you yourself have become a mediator. God has used you to mediate a connection between the Holy Spirit and an unbeliever. We're ALL mediators, but not in the same way as Jesus and a new covenant.
One more thing that you can be sure that Peter knew and the Catholic church seems not to.
Peter and Jesus' Church were in complete agreement, wouldn't you think? After all, Jesus, changing Simon's name to Kepha, also changed his level of authority, just as God did with Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel. It's very consistent, very simple.
If they did why would they teach that Mary is another and better mediator than Christ, in direct opposition to God's own word?
They wouldn't. They don't. You can exhale. We're both in agreement, my friend in Christ.
The church of Jesus Christ is all those that are Christians, not a denomination or a building.
It's interesting that the word denomination means "to take another name." As we covered, Jesus gave us only one set of beliefs. He didn't leave us a Bible. He didn't leave us a tradition.
He left us a Church. And 1.2 billion people on the planet have to be in that Church because of their love for Jesus. I just ask all those who've never read the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and others who learned Christianity from the Apostles to just read their writings, that's all.
Peace, my brothers and sisters in Christ. Let us be one in love.
FullGospel - Actually when people read 1 Timothy 3:15 I would expect they will read it in context and see that it's Paul telling Timothy that if he is delayed in coming that the preceding verses are directions for him in pastoring his church.
It's funny that you should bring up this book. I can't help but notice that one of the things Paul is teaching Timothy about is prayer..see chapter 2:1-8, in particular vs 5 "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." One more thing that you can be sure that Peter knew and the Catholic church seems not to. If they did why would they teach that Mary is another and better mediator than Christ, in direct opposition to God's own word?
The church of Jesus Christ is all those that are Christians, not a denomination or a building. Personally I attend churches of two denominations each week. They preach and believe the same things as do most Bible believing churches. The names aren't important, what is important is their devotion to the Word of God. The differences of church government, or social customs, that make up the majority of differences in church denomination make no difference whatsoever.
"Why is it that most of the atheists, evolutionists and other confused folks that show up in these forums only speak in wild exaggerations and overly broad and baseless hyperbole?"
I've wondered that too. They tend to come and go. One will stick around for a while, until he gets bored or threatened by the truth... only to be replaced by another. I've been reading this for about a year, and this is my first post. I've seen quite a few atheists come here only looking for a fight. They can be almost predatory. Some are looking for self gratification and justification. Others are honestly seeking answers. God bless all of them. Thank you for strengthening my faith! By whatever reason they are here, we have a chance to proclaim the name of our God, and to rebuke Satan in the name of Jesus Christ.
If the Lord tarries…
The church will still be nourished by the Lord. “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church” (Eph 5:29)
The church will still be built upon the Rock instead of man. “For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?” (Ps 18:31)
The church will still have only one redeemer without any co-redeemer. “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Ro 3:24) “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb 9:14)
The church will still have one King without a queen. “Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1Ti 6:15). “There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.” (1Sa 2:2)
How you can mention Mormons and Amish in the same breath? Mormons believe that God the Father and God the Son were once human men, and became gods, and that we can become gods in the same way (that is, men can, not women). Amish are essentially orthodox in their beliefs and differ from standard Christianity only in their view of government. Mormonism is not Christianity at all.
"To some extent the control of the Catholic church is still going on. There are still many who even though they have the ability to read God's own Word, would rather follow the teaching of "the Church" rather then that of God. Why do you think that is?"
RBB, I'm suspecting that when people read in 1 Tim. 3:15 that the foundation of truth for Christians is the Church that Jesus founded, the one that the gates of hell will not prevail against (Mt. 16:18), they have to be in that Church because of their love for Jesus. The Church could have been labeled rutabaga for all I care, but it was given a universal (i.e. catholic) label by the earliest Christians. We're there first and foremost because it's all about Jesus.
A secondary reason is the premise that "two people can read Scripture privately at home and the Holy Spirit will lead them both to the same understanding of every verse" has produced the 40,000 conflicting versions of Christianity we're all suffering under now. At what point will we conclude "maybe this isn't the case?" At 4,000,000 denominations?
My friend in Christ, this continued direction toward disintegration is nuts.
I think it was John Calvin who wrote to Phillip Melanchton after the reformers couldn't even agree amongst themselves at the Castle of Marburg in 1522 about what truth was. He said something along the lines of "it should not become known to future generations the divisions that subsist among us, because nothing would be more ridiculous than that we, who have broken ourselves off from the world, have agreed so poorly among ourselves from the beginning of the reformation." Somebody can dig up the quote on Google.
Until we get the family back together, we're all going to be suffering the effects of the curse of division we've brought on ourselves. I'll get off my soapbox now...
It seems Kelly does not believe that Jesus' coming is on hand. What a pity to have to look into another thousand years of waiting for our Lord. What hopelessness!
Why is it that most of the atheists, evolutionists and other confused folks that show up in these forums only speak in wild exaggerations and overly broad and baseless hyperbole?
Once upon a time there was a man standing in the middle of the train tracks, oblivious to the dangerous position he was in. Another man standing upon safe ground nearby and observing an oncoming train, shouted to the first man, "'come away from there or you'll die".
The first man was indignant and said "How dare you threaten me? I know what I am doing.", and ignored the second man's pleadings to retreat to a safe place.
Sadly, the first man died in his foolishness and pride.
How curious that the first man would be so irrational as to scorn his would be rescuer.
Quecat: "take a closer look at your precarious position relative to eternity."
Another threat from an everything-is-magic Christian. Thanks for providing more evidence Christians are the most immoral people in history.
The whole article is really rather pointless. A well studied comprehensive view of biblical eschatology would convince you that within the next 1000 years (and rather much sooner than that) those that belong to the Lord will be in heaven praising him and reigning with him!
As for bobx? Well, he'll have a major problem (major understatement).
I would suggest, bobx, that you lose the unbecoming smugness and take a closer look at your precarious position relative to eternity.
To everyone else - Maranatha! (and see you soon)
...I've read the back of the book, and we win!...
Well, just to throw my bit into this, I like the Catholic church, as an idea, but in reality it just hasn't been so peachy. The Catholic church clearly strayed from the truth in scripture, Popes declared previous Popes as anti-popes, recent Popes have kissed the Quran (Which says within it quite clearly that Christ was not God, the Son of God, or the only way to heaven), and the Catholic church looks more like the Protestant church now than like the Catholic church of yesterday. Indeed it could be quite logically stated that a good Catholic of 1000 years ago may very well be condemend by the Catholic church of today, and a Catholic of today may very well be condemned by the Catholic church of 1000 years ago. The true Chur