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

[JulieB67]

where then the style would be evident to those Jews it is understandable that nearly two thousand years later it would confuse you.

It has nothing to do with the style or idioms. We're talking about blatant inaccuracy like King N ruling over the Assyrians. That's false. He was a Babylonian king. Everyone who has read the Word knows this fact. He also couldn't have ruled in Nineveh (he of course ruled in Babylon regardless) at the time listed because it has already been destroyed and the list goes on. Those are straight up discrepancies with the rest of the Word.

And it's these discrepancies that Catholics have had to deal with over the years when trying to explain them. But as I stated I don't think God has to deal in fiction. Obviously others believe differently.

And this doesn't confuse me because I can see that it's not true and shouldn't be considered canon but as I stated this could very well confuse someone who is seeking the truth of God's word and see that this book is considered canon to some. If they see blatant contradictions such as these it would naturally cause confusion.

And something like this is also different from parables, etc brought forth in the Word. Facts are never changed to do so.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. In the early centuries the Gospels were widely accepted as readings at Catholic mass, but the mass readings from other books varied from region to region. The Catholic Church set out to determine what was God-breathed text and what was not. As I've stated before, there were a number of lists before the NT list of Saint Athanasius. The Catholic Church kept getting closer to the final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. All Bibles in Europe contained the same 73 books until Protestants dropped books from their version during the reformation.


It is a description of what John sees, the Ark, the Ark of the New Covenant. Obviously the woman, the mother of the one who will rule all of the nations with an iron rod (Jesus), is Mary. Certainly there are layers of representation, with the Church, with the twelve Apostles, being represented in one layer. But this woman wears clothes, a real woman, and also wears a crown. Mary too, is a queen like the other queen mothers before her in the Davidic kingdom. The dragon also is a real entity--Satan.

The issue with the RCC, is defining when it began. While the RCC claims it started with Peter and the first churches, that is not a claim non-Catholics will accept. What we call the RCC today, was something that evolved over time. I would say the early church was simply a Christian church not yet resembling the later RCC. The early bishops did not report to a pope. There was no priesthood and no mass. There were liturgical services but being liturgical does not make a service The Mass. While you claim otherwise, not all the early church fathers believed in transubstantiation. That belief is central to The Mass and differentiates it from other liturgical services. That, and the fact that it is part of the RCC liturgy. Various dated ranges have been suggested for when the early Christian churches became the RCC. They range anywhere from the late 300s to nearly 1000 AD. It was an evolution and it's subjective to pick an exact date. It was the early Christian church that recognized the Canon of Scripture. Most were independent bishops who came together. To claim it was a full-formed RCC at that point in history is a biased view.

As for Revelation, I disagree the woman depicted is Mary. Even if it is, there is no designation of her as the Ark of the New Covenant and the verses in question do not suggest such a connection. It is a change of subjects and one does not connect to the other.

Church history is a story of evolution. I believe history shows that the early church was a collection of largely independent churches with no overarching ecclesiastical organization. Such an organization began to take form sometime after Constantine became emperor. In time the bishop of Rome gained prestige as Rome was the capital of the Empire at that time and by far the most influential city. The various doctrines that are unique to the RCC church evolved over a long period of time. Eventually, this led to schisms. The first big schism was the East/West schism that led to the formation of the Orthodox churches. In the 15th century came the Protestant Reformation although men like Jon Huss in Czechoslovakia were martyred for their faith before then. It was these schisms that led to the formal formation of non-RC churches and denominations. To say there was one continual Catholic church from the time of the Apostles is not supported by history. To claim all of church history from the time of the Apostles until the first schism is Roman Catholicism is a uniquely RC perspective.

 

[Valletta]

It has nothing to do with the style or idioms. We're talking about blatant inaccuracy like King N ruling over the Assyrians. That's false. He was a Babylonian king. Everyone who has read the Word knows this fact. He also couldn't have ruled in Nineveh (he of course ruled in Babylon regardless) at the time listed because it has already been destroyed and the list goes on. Those are straight up discrepancies with the rest of the Word.

And it's these discrepancies that Catholics have had to deal with over the years when trying to explain them. But as I stated I don't think God has to deal in fiction. Obviously others believe differently.

And this doesn't confuse me because I can see that it's not true and shouldn't be considered canon but as I stated this could very well confuse someone who is seeking the truth of God's word and see that this book is considered canon to some. If they see blatant contradictions such as these it would naturally cause confusion.

And something like this is also different from parables, etc brought forth in the Word. Facts are never changed to do so.

Realize that those much closer to the events were well aware that the writings were not written for historical accuracy. Catholics consider the entire Bible to be inerrant--that the message was exactly what God intended. That does not mean, for example, that each of the days of creation were exactly as many hours as our days, or that the Garden of Eden was a garden in the sense we understand today. Throughout Christian Europe all of the Bibles contained 73 books, from the late 300s when the Catholic Church decided upon those books, until reformation times. Luther was able to get some books, but not all the books, he wanted dropped from the Protestant version of the Bible.
Protestants, as part of their traditions, also retain the order of books chosen by the Catholic Church

 

[Valletta]

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)
of Christ? The RCC goes so far as to teach that the Lord is obligated to appear at Mass commanded to do so by the priest.

When you copy material such as "espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:" or "similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically" you should use quotations and provide your source. By the way, Eusebius of Caesarea is not a "Church Father." Take the time to read the Fathers for yourself.

 

[Valletta]

You believe it's God's intended purpose to put out a book that has wrong dates, places, The king of Babylon being the king of Assyria. Nineveh is all of the sudden is not destroyed but the King of Babylon is ruling from there and so on. But God would not have to change facts to get a message across. That makes no sense at all.

You brought up Catholic Answers so I looked up that they had to say:

"The book of Judith was excluded from the Jewish canon by Pharisees around the first century A.D. on very arbitrary grounds. Nor is it accepted by Protestants (who describe these deuterocanonical books as “apocryphal”). The Catholic Church has always regarded them as inspired. They are often quoted by the Fathers, and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) included them among the Sacred Scriptures.
It is important to bear in mind, that this is a free narrative of a historical event, written with a teaching, moralizing purpose in mind. This explains, for example, why Nebuchadnezzar (604-562 B.C.), is described as king of Nineveh, whereas Nineveh is known to have been destroyed in 612. According to the narrative itself we are in the post-exilic period, after the rebuilding of the Temple (4:3-13; 5:18). There are no signs of idolatry (8:18), and the Law is being rigorously observed (12:2-9). All this suggests that the sacred writer, for some reason of symbolism, wanted to give fictitious names to people and places. His contemporaries would have had no difficulty in working out what the characters’ real names were, whereas we have the greatest difficulty."

Judith and Esther

Like the book of Tobit, that of Judith was also written in a Semitic language—probably Hebrew—but the original text was lost early on. Together with Tobit and Judith, the book of Esther forms a special grouping within the historical books of the Old Testament.

www.catholic.com

Let me add that there are a number of instances in different books of the Bible where a story might be fictional or based upon a true historical character.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

That is not an issue at all. Jesus said he would build it, he made Peter the leader, and the Holy Spirit was breathed into it on Pentecost.

And it is not called "RCC". The acronym RCC tossed about. Sometimes it is done in innocence, but very often it is done out of malice by people who know better.

The Catholic Church is the "Catholic Church", not the Roman Catholic Church. Within the Catholic Church, there are many "Rites": The Maronite Rite, the Syriac Rite, the Chaldean Rite, the Byzantine Rite, and many many other "Rites" or Churches, and also included is the Latin Rite, or "Roman" rite if you will. The Roman Catholic Church is a part of the Catholic Church, but that is all.

What all these Churches - or "Rites" - have in common is doctrine, and submission to the Pope as the Successor of Peter and earthly head of the Church. Not all Catholics are "Latin Rite" Catholics though, and some Catholics can find it rather offensive when the Church is continually referred to as the RCC.

Now in America, its true that most Catholics are Latin Rite (Roman Catholic) but many are not. But if you go to some other countries you'll find that most Catholics are NOT Roman Catholics.

What does this say:

View attachment 347095

It says "Catechism of the Catholic Church". It does not say "Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church". That is an important point to remember.

Quote:

RITES A Rite represents an ecclesiastical, or church, tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. Each of the sacraments has at its core an essential nature which must be satisfied for the sacrament to be confected or realized. This essence – of matter, form and intention – derives from the divinely revealed nature of the particular sacrament. It cannot be changed by the Church. Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium, tells us what is essential in each of the sacraments (2 Thes. 2:15). When the apostles brought the Gospel to the major cultural centers of their day the essential elements of religious practice were inculturated into those cultures. This means that the essential elements were clothed in the symbols and trappings of the particular people, so that the rituals conveyed the desired spiritual meaning to that culture. In this way the Church becomes all things to all men that some might be saved (1 Cor. 9:22). There are three major groupings of Rites based on this initial transmission of the faith, the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). Later on the Byzantine derived as a major Rite from the Antiochian, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. From these four derive the over 20 liturgical Rites present in the Church today.

source: Catholic Rites and Churches

Personally, I would appreciate it if peopler referred to me as a Catholic, and my Church as the Catholic Church. It would be the respectful thing to do since nobody here really know what Rite me or other Catholics here actually are.

No offense meant. I will change my language. If I say CC in the future, it will refer to Catholic Church.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Realize that those much closer to the events were well aware that the writings were not written for historical accuracy. Catholics consider the entire Bible to be inerrant--that the message was exactly what God intended. That does not mean, for example, that each of the days of creation were exactly as many hours as our days, or that the Garden of Eden was a garden in the sense we understand today. Throughout Christian Europe all of the Bibles contained 73 books, from the late 300s when the Catholic Church decided upon those books, until reformation times. Luther was able to get some books, but not all the books, he wanted dropped from the Protestant version of the Bible.
Protestants, as part of their traditions, also retain the order of books chosen by the Catholic Church

Chosen by the early Christian church. No Catholic Church yet.

 

[Valletta]

Chosen by the early Christian church. No Catholic Church yet.

You were so wrong about the Church fathers, I still urge you to read documents from the early centuries for yourself. Perhaps a Protestant source to start on some of what was going on before Constantine in the Catholic Church, maybe start with Saint Cyprian who lived just before Constantine:

"In the summer of 254 his position was tested again, by a dispute with Stephen, bishop of Rome (254–257). Until then relations between the churches of Carthage and Rome had been cordial. In 251 Cyprian had supported Bishop Cornelius against his rival, Novatian, and had written on his behalf the treatise On the Unity of the Catholic Church, which stressed the centrality of the see of Peter (Rome) as the source of the episcopacy."

St. Cyprian | Biography, Persecution, Martyrdom, Feast Day, & Facts

St. Cyprian was an early Christian theologian and bishop of Carthage who led the Christians of North Africa during a period of persecution from Rome. Upon his execution he became the first bishop-martyr of Africa. Cyprian was born of wealthy pagan parents and was educated in law. He practiced as a

www.britannica.com

Then you could read On the Unity of the Catholic Church for yourself. As to the Bible, within the Church some of the NT books were denounced in areas, other books that did not make the canon were promoted, and a number of NT books were ranked as not as important as others. There were various lists, you can read about a reference to "Bibles" during the reign of Constantine, but again these were precursors. The Catholic Church took time to weigh and discuss and pray upon the decision as to which books were God-breathed. The Catholic Church kept getting closer to the final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. As I mentioned, Luther tried to get books removed from the Bible. He was unsuccessful at some, for example, Revelation remains. Protestants ultimately adopted the list of NT books chosen by the Catholic Church in the late 300s, and as part of Protestant tradition they use the same order of books chosen by the Catholic Church. No Catholic Church--no Bible.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

You were so wrong about the Church fathers, I still urge you to read documents from the early centuries for yourself. Perhaps a Protestant source to start on some of what was going on before Constantine in the Catholic Church, maybe start with Saint Cyprian who lived just before Constantine:

"In the summer of 254 his position was tested again, by a dispute with Stephen, bishop of Rome (254–257). Until then relations between the churches of Carthage and Rome had been cordial. In 251 Cyprian had supported Bishop Cornelius against his rival, Novatian, and had written on his behalf the treatise On the Unity of the Catholic Church, which stressed the centrality of the see of Peter (Rome) as the source of the episcopacy."

St. Cyprian | Biography, Persecution, Martyrdom, Feast Day, & Facts

St. Cyprian was an early Christian theologian and bishop of Carthage who led the Christians of North Africa during a period of persecution from Rome. Upon his execution he became the first bishop-martyr of Africa. Cyprian was born of wealthy pagan parents and was educated in law. He practiced as a

www.britannica.com

Then you could read On the Unity of the Catholic Church for yourself. As to the Bible, within the Church some of the NT books were denounced in areas, other books that did not make the canon were promoted, and a number of NT books were ranked as not as important as others. There were various lists, you can read about a reference to "Bibles" during the reign of Constantine, but again these were precursors. The Catholic Church took time to weigh and discuss and pray upon the decision as to which books were God-breathed. The Catholic Church kept getting closer to the final list as time progressed., with Revelation being the last NT book decided upon. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. As I mentioned, Luther tried to get books removed from the Bible. He was unsuccessful at some, for example, Revelation remains. Protestants ultimately adopted the list of NT books chosen by the Catholic Church in the late 300s, and as part of Protestant tradition they use the same order of books chosen by the Catholic Church. No Catholic Church--no Bible.

If you continue reading in Encylopedia Britannica, Cyprian opposed the Bishop of Rome on later occasions.

"Within months there was an even more serious dispute with Rome. For a few years the supporters of Novatian had been active in Africa, asserting against Cyprian that no forgiveness for lapsed Christians was possible. With the recovery of Cyprian’s prestige, however, their threat began to fade. Many of those whom they had baptized clamoured to be admitted to the church. Was their baptism valid or not? In Rome, Stephen, confronted by the same problem, decided that all baptism in the name of the Trinity was valid. The Africans at first were of two minds on the issue, and Cyprian held three councils between the autumn of 255 and September 256. The last, at which 87 bishops were present, decided unanimously that there could be no baptism outside the church, just as there could not be faith, hope, or salvation for those outside it. A minister could not dispense what he himself did not possess—namely, the Holy Spirit. Those who had received baptism from Novatianists had to be baptized anew. Behind this clash over rites lay the more fundamental question concerning the nature of the church. Though Rome emphasized the church’s universal and inevitably mixed character on earth, the North Africans stressed its integrity under all circumstances. Baptism entailed total renunciation of the world and the reception of the Spirit."

I find it interesting that he held 3 councils on his own. Not councils ordered or organized by the Bishop of Rome. Clearly he did not give total obedience to the Chair of Peter in Rome. He clearly held an opposing position concerning the status of those who had denied their faith and now wanted readmission to the church and the Bishop of Rome's decision to recognize as still valid their former baptisms. Further on in the Britannica article we read:

"During the previous seven years his character had matured, and he had shown himself to be a brave and resourceful leader of the church in Africa. His theology was based on the central idea of the unity and uniqueness of the church: “He no longer has God for his Father, who does not have the Church for his mother” (On the Unity of the Catholic Church). Unity was expressed through the consensus of bishops, all equally possessing the Holy Spirit and sovereign in their own sees. The church consisted of the people united to their bishop. Schism and rebellion against the priesthood were viewed as the worst of sins. These views—associated with an uncompromising insistence on the integrity and exclusive character of the church, which are believed to have been derived from the North African theologian Tertullian—received divine sanction for most North African Christians through his martyrdom." (emphasis added)

He believed in the sovereignty of the bishops over their own see. There is not a belief in those bishops submitting to the Bishop of Rome. Yes, he believed in church unity but not in the sense the Catholic Church insists on. Athanasius likewise called a synod in 362 to discuss an important issue regarding the baptism of those who accepted Arianism. Once again held without the inclusion of or order from the Bishop of Rome. He called another one in 363.

As I have stated previously, the church that gathered in the late 300s was not yet the Catholic Church. It was a gathering of Bishops some of who still believed in the sovereignty of their sees. Much of what would later distinguish Catholic doctrine from non-Catholic doctrine had not yet been adopted. It was not the Catholic Church that recognized the NT canon but rather the Christian church. I would also not refer to these men as "saints" except in the sense that all believers in Christ are "the saints."

 

[Valletta]

There were interesting times for Athanasius. The Arians were against Athanasius and insisted their rival bishop should be in charge. Athanasius decided to appeal to the pope. Athanasius sent envoys to deliver a letter to plead his case to Pope Julius. The statement of by Pope Julius is a matter of historical record, I have quoted just a small portion but have provided a link to the entire letter:

"22. For not only the Bishops Athanasius and Marcellus came hither and complained of the injustice that had been done them, but many other Bishops also [Note M], from Thrace, from Cœle-Syria, from Phœnicia and Palestine, and Presbyters not a few, and others from Alexandria and from other parts, were present at the Council here, and in addition to their other statements, lamented before all the assembled Bishops the violence and injustice which the Churches had suffered, and affirmed that similar outrages to those which had been committed in Alexandria had occurred in their own Churches, and in others also. Again, there lately came Presbyters with letters from Egypt and Alexandria, who complained that many Bishops and Presbyters who wished to come to the Council were prevented; for they said that, since the departure of Athanasius [Note N] even up to this time, Bishops who are confessors [Note O] have been beaten with stripes, that others have been cast into prison, and that but lately aged men, who have been an exceedingly long period in the Episcopate, have been {54} given up to be employed in the public works, and nearly all the Clergy of the Catholic Church with the people are the objects of plots and persecutions."

Newman Reader - Historical Tracts of St. Athanasius - 2

You also seem to be under a misunderstanding. A pope did not have to convene a Council or synod or attend or even send envoys. A pope could simply approve, note that when I talked about the canon decided upon by the Catholic Church I said "This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread had a small clean up. Please keep it civil. ​

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The early Christian church IS the Catholic Church.
Peter was the first Pope
The bishops mentioned in the NT were the first bishops.

All other sects are breakaways from the True Church.

I would respectfully disagree. The early bishops were not appointed. They were elected by their local church community. They were independent and did not report back to a central figure like a pope. The bishop of Rome was not even a central figure yet. These were all later developments. I would contend that in the beginning, it was the Christian church. After the 4th century, the bishop of Rome took on greater prominence and got the backing of Constantine when he became Emporer. The idea of a central leader who appointed or approved of bishops came after. Slowly the Catholic church emerged. When Constantine moved his capital to the east, this laid the groundwork for the later schism between the east and the west although the split did not occur formally until a little after 1000 AD. There were already those who felt the church was straying from the Scriptures though no permanent breaks had occurred. The first such break was the east/west schism that established the orthodox churches. In the 1500s the Protestant Reformation occurred. Those men were attempting at first to reform the Catholic church and bring it back to the teachings of the Apostles and the Bible. When the church would not reform, they had no choice but to leave. They, and I, would contend the Catholic church was not "the True Church" but had gone astray where she remains to this day. The doctrine of the office of the Pope was not even established until the 1500s.

The "True Chruch" are all churches that teach the Scriptures faithfully and those who follow Christ.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

There were interesting times for Athanasius. The Arians were against Athanasius and insisted their rival bishop should be in charge. Athanasius decided to appeal to the pope. Athanasius sent envoys to deliver a letter to plead his case to Pope Julius. The statement of by Pope Julius is a matter of historical record, I have quoted just a small portion but have provided a link to the entire letter:

"22. For not only the Bishops Athanasius and Marcellus came hither and complained of the injustice that had been done them, but many other Bishops also [Note M], from Thrace, from Cœle-Syria, from Phœnicia and Palestine, and Presbyters not a few, and others from Alexandria and from other parts, were present at the Council here, and in addition to their other statements, lamented before all the assembled Bishops the violence and injustice which the Churches had suffered, and affirmed that similar outrages to those which had been committed in Alexandria had occurred in their own Churches, and in others also. Again, there lately came Presbyters with letters from Egypt and Alexandria, who complained that many Bishops and Presbyters who wished to come to the Council were prevented; for they said that, since the departure of Athanasius [Note N] even up to this time, Bishops who are confessors [Note O] have been beaten with stripes, that others have been cast into prison, and that but lately aged men, who have been an exceedingly long period in the Episcopate, have been {54} given up to be employed in the public works, and nearly all the Clergy of the Catholic Church with the people are the objects of plots and persecutions."

Newman Reader - Historical Tracts of St. Athanasius - 2

You also seem to be under a misunderstanding. A pope did not have to convene a Council or synod or attend or even send envoys. A pope could simply approve, note that when I talked about the canon decided upon by the Catholic Church I said "This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list.

Many writers from that time period use the term "Catholic Church" to mean the church universal as yet there were no denominations and no schisms had taken place yet. That is not the same as saying an ecclesiastical structure named the Catholic Church was in existence. As I quoted above, Athanasius believed each bishop to be sovereign over his own see. He may have appealed to the pope as a man of influence who might try and bring peace in the church but that is not the same as him recognizing him as the head of all Christendom and sitting on the seat of Peter as no such office was established.

The books universally accepted as Scripture did not need the blessing of a pope. Much of what would later characterize Catholocism was not yet even practiced. One must distinguish between a desire for unity based on the teaching of the Apostles and a common faith from belief in an ecclesiastical structure led by a central figure. The fact that some were called bishops does not mean they were bishops in the later Catholic sense of the word. The Catholic church tried to trace a line back to Peter and then claimed all those in that line were popes when no such office even existed for centuries. Eventually, Popes gained power and started mixing politics with religion raising armies and assisting Catholic kings and queens in opposing Protestant kings and queens all in the name of expanding their power and influence. Offices were being bought and sold and at times there were even rival popes. It was the corrupt practice of selling indulgences that most irritated Luther. For centuries much of the Mass was said in Latin though few could understand the language. Certainly, there was nothing Scriptural about the use of Latin nor no requirement in Scripture for celibate leaders. When Paul wrote about the qualifications for leaders he said nothing about them being unmarried and celibate. Did God change His mind on that? Christ's church is not the Catholic church or the Lutheran church or the Methodist church, etc. It is the body of believers no matter what church they attend and those churches that faithfully teach the Word. It is not a matter of ecclesiology but of theology.

 

[JoeT]

Also in John 6, Jesus says:

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (emphasis added).

The Jews present were looking for another miracle from Jesus after the miracle of the loaves and fishes. They were thinking of their temporal needs (i.e. thinking with their stomachs). Jesus goes on to contrast the literal food (manna) they received in their wilderness journey, with the spiritual food He will supply them with through His death and resurrection. This is still long before the Last Supper. Since they were thinking in a literal sense he chose words that corresponded to their thinking. He makes a point that He who eats his "food" will never hunger again as He told the woman at the well that He who drinks the water he gives, shall never thirst again.

If you want to take that literally, then one participation in the Eucharist should suffice. You would not need to keep going back Sunday after Sunday. You would "never hunger again" or "never thirst again." Yet, you do keep going back. If the bread and wine literally became the body and blood of Christ, then as a human being His body had finite dimensions. We would have consumed all his body and all his blood thousands of years ago. In the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, God created new loaves and new fish so they could continue to eat. It was not the same loaf or the same few fish eaten over and over again.

As Jesus states in verse 63, it is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh is of no help at all. He is pointing out to them that while full bellies are satisfying, they do nothing for you spiritually. Jesus instructed the Apostles to "do this in remembrance of me" at the Last Supper. He instituted it as a memorial. We receive spiritual blessings from God through non-material means. If the Eucharist became Jesus' literal body and blood, then it would be through material means. The Bible tells us that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was "once and for all." Yet the RCC re-sacrifices Him over and over again during the Mass. Once was not enough. The sacrifice was not "once and for all."

Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood"(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).

Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, "put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him." . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, "Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me." And, "His teeth are white as milk," show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).

He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).

And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24).

As you can see, not all the early church fathers held the view of transubstantiation. They saw Christ's body and blood as figures and symbols to be spiritually understood. It is curious to me that the RCC quit serving wine at communion centuries ago suddenly insisting the priest was taking the wine for everyone and it was represented in the bread. Why withhold the wine if it is indeed the very blood of Christ? The RCC goes so far as to teach that the Lord is obligated to appear at Mass commanded to do so by the priest.

So far as I know, there are only two views of communion among Protestants. Consubstantiation and the Spiritual Presence view. Neither believes in the Catholic view of transubstantiation.

What some Protestants do for communion is eat a piece of bread and drink a jigger of grape juice. What Catholic receive in communion is a sacrament. And, indeed in a commemoration, [1 Corinthians 11:25, 24; Luke 22:19]. Wrap your mind around the meaning of a "sacrament".

Here is a definition of all sacraments from the Catechism of the Catholic Catholic Church: The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions. CCC 1131.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes on to teach that From the time of the Apostles the Church teaches the following: "Seated at the right hand of the Father" and pouring out the Holy Spirit on his Body which is the Church, Christ now acts through the sacraments he instituted to communicate his grace. The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify. CCC 1084

Notice the word "signify", you could substitute symbol. The matter of the Sacrifice that makes the efficacious grace are bread and wine, the species. It's what happens to the bread and wine in the Rite of communion, transubstantiation, i.e. the Real Presence of Christ. Otherwise you can sit down to a bread and cheese sandwich with a glass of grape juice. Consequently, by the mere presence of the word "symbol" you can't claim that the ECFs taught there is no eternal life in the Eucharist because symbols do not give eternal life, however the sacrament Eucharist does give eternal life. [John 6:55 Sqq.]

JoeT

 

[rturner76]

Mary was much more than "all of us." God had to choose an unspoiled clear virgin womb for his son to grow in. I don't think God would have used a woman whose womb was polluted with sin. Even if she wasn't perfect, she had perfect faith and was righteous enough to raise God's son. I think she's a pretty special lady.

Just another jab at the religion that started all of the modern churches. It's just that whatever Protestants don't like, they change. No changing what the blessed virgin meant to the world.

 

[Valletta]

Many writers from that time period use the term "Catholic Church" to mean the church universal as yet there were no denominations and no schisms had taken place yet. That is not the same as saying an ecclesiastical structure named the Catholic Church was in existence. As I quoted above, Athanasius believed each bishop to be sovereign over his own see. He may have appealed to the pope as a man of influence who might try and bring peace in the church but that is not the same as him recognizing him as the head of all Christendom and sitting on the seat of Peter as no such office was established.

False. There were plenty of men of influence in the world, as a bishop Athanasius time and time again submitted to the decisions of more than one pope.
I suppose you find it a coincidence that Athanasius chose men of influence who just happened to be pope? This is getting really far-fetched. Again, read the actual historical documents. Read about Athanasius in the historical documents from that time and then we can discuss him if you wish.

Certainly, there was nothing Scriptural about the use of Latin

Scripture itself does not ban translations of itself into any language. The decision to compile the books of the Bible was strictly a decision of the Catholic Church. Holy Scripture was translated by Catholics into various languages. In Europe Latin had eventually replaced Greek as the common language of the people. And essentially, in Europe, if you were fortunate to know how to read and write, you knew Latin. So it was Pope Damascus who in 382 A.D. ordered Saint Jerome to create a Latin version of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were virtually approved by that time, although as I have said the formal approval by the Catholic Church did not take place until the 390s. You can blame Pope Damascus if you are critical, the pope wanted to put the Word of God into the common, or "vulgar" language of the people. Thus the version the pope commissioned is known as the Latin "Vulgate," taken from the word "vulgar."

 

[JulieB67]

Realize that those much closer to the events were well aware that the writings were not written for historical accuracy.

And yet it was excluded from Jewish canon.

"The book of Judith was excluded from the Jewish canon by Pharisees around the first century A.D. on very arbitrary grounds.

And you posted this earlier

Also we are far removed from the Jews of the first century, where then the style would be evident to those Jews

Not all of them apparently.

It is important to bear in mind, that this is a free narrative of a historical event, written with a teaching, moralizing purpose in mind.

An entire book? I'm not buying it. Again I don't believe God has to deal in this kind of fiction to the point of changing historical facts that contradict other books to to produce a moral lesson. There would be no purpose. And it's an entire book. It's not a parable and it doesn't come off as allegorical. It's written as if it's meant to be truth. And there in lies the problem.

Let me add that there are a number of instances in different books of the Bible where a story might be fictional or based upon a true historical character.

Where facts were actually changed?

What is one instance? You said there are a number of instances. And we are talking about a book, not a parable or story within a book. But even then, what is an example where facts were changed-people, dates, places? I'm just curious.

Again, it's one thing to write a fictional story but to believe it's God inspired is another. I don't believe he would intentionally change facts -people, places or dates to produce a moral lesson.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

False. There were plenty of men of influence in the world, as a bishop Athanasius time and time again submitted to the decisions of more than one pope.
I suppose you find it a coincidence that Athanasius chose men of influence who just happened to be pope? This is getting really far-fetched. Again, read the actual historical documents. Read about Athanasius in the historical documents from that time and then we can discuss him if you wish.


Scripture itself does not ban translations of itself into any language. The decision to compile the books of the Bible was strictly a decision of the Catholic Church. Holy Scripture was translated by Catholics into various languages. In Europe Latin had eventually replaced Greek as the common language of the people. And essentially, in Europe, if you were fortunate to know how to read and write, you knew Latin. So it was Pope Damascus who in 382 A.D. ordered Saint Jerome to create a Latin version of the New Testament. The books of the New Testament were virtually approved by that time, although as I have said the formal approval by the Catholic Church did not take place until the 390s. You can blame Pope Damascus if you are critical, the pope wanted to put the Word of God into the common, or "vulgar" language of the people. Thus the version the pope commissioned is known as the Latin "Vulgate," taken from the word "vulgar."

I can only repeat what I have previously written. While you call these men popes, the office did not yet officially exist. He was more the bishop of Rome. While he was a man of influence, he did not have ecclesiastical authority over Athanasius. Athanasius did not have to submit to his decisions. The church up until this time was pretty Biblical but soon after this time veered off that path.

As for Latin, I was not speaking of the Bible but rather the Mass. The Mass continued to be said in Latin until Second Vatican. In fact, I can remember attending a pre-Vatican II Mass spoken in Latin with the priest's back to the people. It was kept in Latin for the sake of tradition despite the fact that by 1960 Latin was a dead language for centuries before that except in the Catholic Church and some scholars. Why did it take so long to put that in the language of the people? They did it with the Bible yet waited a very long time to do it with the Mass.

When I left the Catholic Church, and began attending Protestant churches, I was struck by several things:

• It was refreshing to hear prayers being said from the heart and not being read out of a book. The Catholic Church is so stuck on tradition and fear of anything being spoken that is not approved that nearly every prayer in the Mass is read out of a book. While some people find comfort in sameness, it had the opposite effect on me. It was dull hearing the same words over and over and over again. I used to wonder why the priest could not pray in his own words. What harm would be done?
• Probably the biggest change was hearing in-depth teaching. Most of the homilies I heard for 20+ years, were very brief and barely scratched the surface of the passages. Many times the homily time was used to play a taped message from the bishop. The homilies were based on the Scripture readings for that day all of which were picked ahead of time by the church and no change was allowed. You never got to hear all of the Bible or the passages in context. Just what was selected. You never heard a priest preach. I would call those homilies devotions at best. The first time I went to a Protestant church I heard a pastor preaching through an entire NT book verse-by-verse. I was like man who had not eaten or had water and was dying and suddenly I was feasting. I was no longer being handed a fish but being taught how to fish. What richness I found in the Bible that had been hidden from me for over two decades. I faithfully went to catechism classes my entire youth and never once saw a Bible opened and read from. All we got were lessons from the catechism but no explanation as to why those things were to be believed in.
• Baptism was amazingly different. I know some Protestant denominations practice infant baptism as do Catholics but I am not a believer in that. It was so refreshing to see people ask to be baptized fully understanding what was taking place. Although I had been baptized as an infant in the Catholic church, I chose to be baptized again in a lake. It meant so much to me. When I went through confirmation, we were never asked if we wanted to be confirmed. It was just something you were expected to do at a certain age. We were never told we had a choice and should not do it if we weren't ready. You just did it because it was time. Very different than making that decision for yourself and then asking to be baptized.
• I also never cared for confession. I never believed I had to go to a priest to confess my sins. God can hear my prayers and I don't need a middleman. I also never believed penance was Biblical.
• While I have nothing against liturgical services, they were not for me. I hated vestments and incense and ringing bells, and so on. It was so nice to get away from all that and not be made to feel like the form of the service had to be "just so."
• The music was WAY better

Those are personal and I am not saying those were all Biblical issues. In short, being a Catholic was looking to the church for everything. Being a Protestant was looking to Christ and His Word for everything. The church was there to help you, guide you, and provide fellowship but your relationship with God was not through the church. I don't believe the Catholic church is led by the Holy Spirit in all things and has left the path of truth in many areas. My salvation does not come from a church. It comes from faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism does not save me. It is an outward act I do in obedience to profess my faith to the world. Eternal life is not found in bread and water becoming the flesh and blood of Christ. It does not. Salvation is by faith and that gives us eternal life. We celebrate communion to remember what our Savior did for us. We sin against God and so we pray to God for forgiveness. We confess our sins to Him not to a priest. When we die in Christ, we go straight to heaven. There is no purgatory. We have no penance left to do.

You can have all that if you want. I don't see it in the Bible.

 

[Valletta]

I can only repeat what I have previously written. While you call these men popes, the office did not yet officially exist. He was more the bishop of Rome. While he was a man of influence, he did not have ecclesiastical authority over Athanasius. Athanasius did not have to submit to his decisions. The church up until this time was pretty Biblical but soon after this time veered off that path.

As for Latin, I was not speaking of the Bible but rather the Mass. The Mass continued to be said in Latin until Second Vatican. In fact, I can remember attending a pre-Vatican II Mass spoken in Latin with the priest's back to the people. It was kept in Latin for the sake of tradition despite the fact that by 1960 Latin was a dead language for centuries before that except in the Catholic Church and some scholars. Why did it take so long to put that in the language of the people? They did it with the Bible yet waited a very long time to do it with the Mass.

When I left the Catholic Church, and began attending Protestant churches, I was struck by several things:

• It was refreshing to hear prayers being said from the heart and not being read out of a book. The Catholic Church is so stuck on tradition and fear of anything being spoken that is not approved that nearly every prayer in the Mass is read out of a book. While some people find comfort in sameness, it had the opposite effect on me. It was dull hearing the same words over and over and over again. I used to wonder why the priest could not pray in his own words. What harm would be done?
• Probably the biggest change was hearing in-depth teaching. Most of the homilies I heard for 20+ years, were very brief and barely scratched the surface of the passages. Many times the homily time was used to play a taped message from the bishop. The homilies were based on the Scripture readings for that day all of which were picked ahead of time by the church and no change was allowed. You never got to hear all of the Bible or the passages in context. Just what was selected. You never heard a priest preach. I would call those homilies devotions at best. The first time I went to a Protestant church I heard a pastor preaching through an entire NT book verse-by-verse. I was like man who had not eaten or had water and was dying and suddenly I was feasting. I was no longer being handed a fish but being taught how to fish. What richness I found in the Bible that had been hidden from me for over two decades. I faithfully went to catechism classes my entire youth and never once saw a Bible opened and read from. All we got were lessons from the catechism but no explanation as to why those things were to be believed in.
• Baptism was amazingly different. I know some Protestant denominations practice infant baptism as do Catholics but I am not a believer in that. It was so refreshing to see people ask to be baptized fully understanding what was taking place. Although I had been baptized as an infant in the Catholic church, I chose to be baptized again in a lake. It meant so much to me. When I went through confirmation, we were never asked if we wanted to be confirmed. It was just something you were expected to do at a certain age. We were never told we had a choice and should not do it if we weren't ready. You just did it because it was time. Very different than making that decision for yourself and then asking to be baptized.
• I also never cared for confession. I never believed I had to go to a priest to confess my sins. God can hear my prayers and I don't need a middleman. I also never believed penance was Biblical.
• While I have nothing against liturgical services, they were not for me. I hated vestments and incense and ringing bells, and so on. It was so nice to get away from all that and not be made to feel like the form of the service had to be "just so."
• The music was WAY better

Those are personal and I am not saying those were all Biblical issues. In short, being a Catholic was looking to the church for everything. Being a Protestant was looking to Christ and His Word for everything. The church was there to help you, guide you, and provide fellowship but your relationship with God was not through the church. I don't believe the Catholic church is led by the Holy Spirit in all things and has left the path of truth in many areas. My salvation does not come from a church. It comes from faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism does not save me. It is an outward act I do in obedience to profess my faith to the world. Eternal life is not found in bread and water becoming the flesh and blood of Christ. It does not. Salvation is by faith and that gives us eternal life. We celebrate communion to remember what our Savior did for us. We sin against God and so we pray to God for forgiveness. We confess our sins to Him not to a priest. When we die in Christ, we go straight to heaven. There is no purgatory. We have no penance left to do.

You can have all that if you want. I don't see it in the Bible.

I consider the words of Jesus, paralleling Isaiah 22 in giving the keys to the kingdom to Peter (and to no other Apostle) official enough for me. So we can agree to disagree. Understand at least the the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome, was considered as a very important person and a decision maker by Catholic bishops. As to your beef about Latin, perhaps that will make you understand the wisdom in Jesus choosing someone to make decisions. Good people can be on both sides, some saying Latin should have been gone before as do you, and some saying Latin should be retained. In my area Latin was not taught until high school, where it was mandatory. But after Vatican II it wasn't long before it became an option. People could travel throughout the world and attend a mass in Latin, and in many countries you are now stuck with a mass where you don't understand the local language.

You're criticisms of the Catholic Church are way off base. Jesus and his Church do not have a "fear of anything being spoken that is not approved."
Try not to judge others. Much of the mass is from the Bible, if you study Revelation you can see so much of the Catholic mass. Catholics believe the Bible is God-breathed. I don't find the Word of God dull at all, the readings and singing the Psalms to me is quite heartening. Jesus commanded us to "do this," that means the breaking and blessing of the bread, the words of consecration, and then consuming the Body and Blood of Jesus. We do not change His Words. Like our brothers and sisters in the East, we find the liturgy of the mass to be beautiful and inspiring. I try and say the "Our Father," the Psalms, and other prayers from the heart.

The mass is not supposed to be an hour of preaching or a complete hour of fellowship. The mass is about holiness. The rest of one's week should be heavily supplemented with prayer, establishing a personal relationship with Jesus. Without a prayer life it is too easy for many to fall away from Jesus.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I consider the words of Jesus, paralleling Isaiah 22 in giving the keys to the kingdom to Peter (and to no other Apostle) official enough for me. So we can agree to disagree. Understand at least the the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome, was considered as a very important person and a decision maker by Catholic bishops. As to your beef about Latin, perhaps that will make you understand the wisdom in Jesus choosing someone to make decisions. Good people can be on both sides, some saying Latin should have been gone before as do you, and some saying Latin should be retained. In my area Latin was not taught until high school, where it was mandatory. But after Vatican II it wasn't long before it became an option. People could travel throughout the world and attend a mass in Latin, and in many countries you are now stuck with a mass where you don't understand the local language.

You're criticisms of the Catholic Church are way off base. Jesus and his Church do not have a "fear of anything being spoken that is not approved."
Try not to judge others. Much of the mass is from the Bible, if you study Revelation you can see so much of the Catholic mass. Catholics believe the Bible is God-breathed. I don't find the Word of God dull at all, the readings and singing the Psalms to me is quite heartening. Jesus commanded us to "do this," that means the breaking and blessing of the bread, the words of consecration, and then consuming the Body and Blood of Jesus. We do not change His Words. Like our brothers and sisters in the East, we find the liturgy of the mass to be beautiful and inspiring. I try and say the "Our Father," the Psalms, and other prayers from the heart.

The mass is not supposed to be an hour of preaching or a complete hour of fellowship. The mass is about holiness. The rest of one's week should be heavily supplemented with prayer, establishing a personal relationship with Jesus. Without a prayer life it is too easy for many to fall away from Jesus.

If Jesus gave "the keys" exclusively to Peter, then why did He give them to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:18? That passage is clearly spoken to all the Apostles, not just Peter. The keys were given to the church to exercise authority but can only bind on earth what God wills. No human authority ever binds God's will. We can only bind that which God has and can only loosen that which God has. Peter was a leader among the Apostles but he had no authority over them and is never depicted as having such power in the rest of the NT. None of the other Apostles ever reference Peter as having such authority. The account of the keys is only found in Matthew. Interestingly, Mark's gospel does not contain it given that Mark got his information from Peter. If this was such a core doctrine then why do we not find it in any of the other Gospels including Mark's? Why does Peter not mention it in his writings? Why does Paul make no mention of it? When Paul planted churches and appointed elders and deacons, why did he not instruct them to look to Peter and accept him as the head of the church?

You say the mass is modeled after Revelation, a book the Catholic church largely claims is symbolic rejecting any belief in the Millennium. In the Book of Acts, we see Paul establishing several churches. We never hear of him installing anything like the mass. He did not appoint priests but deacons and elders who could be married. If the Catholic church is so Scriptural, why are there churches not ruled by a plurality of elders who also do the teaching? Catholic priests do not fit the Biblical description of elders. Catholic masses resemble OT worship with some modeling after Revelation but a mix not found in the Book of Acts or the other NT writings.

Most of the prayers in the mass are not Psalms. They are written by the Catholic church. Why not pray in the priest's own words? The Our Father, while found in Scripture, is meant to be a model prayer. It is fine to pray it but it is equally fine to pray in one's own words. Having grown up Catholic, I know how easy it can become to rattle off Our Fathers and Hail Marys without hardly thinking. Scripture warns against repetitious prayer. While I don't find the practice of penance in Scripture, after confession I was usually told to say a certain number of Our Fathers and Hail Marys for penance. The idea of penance is to do something for the person you offended or sinned against. If you knocked over their mailbox, you offer to fix it or pay for a new one. If you stole money, you pay them back. God needs nothing from us. We can ask for forgiveness but we can't do penance to God. We can only do penance to other humans. Penance is never tied to asking for forgiveness in Scripture. How could praying to Mary be thought of as penance when you sinned against God, not Mary? Not that I believe Mary can hear your prayers.

If there is little to no teaching in the mass, then when do Catholics learn about God? Learning the Scriptures is how we learn how to be holy. We learn the heart of God and what He expects of us. Yes, we must pray too. People also fall away from Jesus by not knowing His Word. There is no fellowship during our services. That takes place before or after. It is the Spirit of God, working through the Word of God, that transforms us.