Church Fathers on the Eucharist and Primacy of Rome

Didache 1st century.
"And on the Lord’s day, gather together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice might be pure."

St. Ignatius of Antioch around 100
I am God’s grain, and I am being ground by the teeth of wild beasts in order that I may be found [to be] pure bread for Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is in me no fire of material love, but rather a living water, speaking in me and saying within me, ‘Come to the Father.’ I take no pleasure in corruptible food or in the delights of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for drink I want his Blood which is incorruptible love.

Be careful to observe [only] one Eucharist; for there is only one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup of union with his Blood, one altar of sacrifice, as [there is] one bishop with the presbyters and my fellow-servants the deacons.

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]).

Irenaeus"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]). "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

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]).

Augustine"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). "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]). ... "What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
-------------

Primacy of Rome

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Pope Clement I
" . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). "You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

Cyprian of Carthage"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church"

Council of Sardica"[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]). "[I]f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).

Optatus of Milevus"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Pope Damasus I"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Augustine"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]). "[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear 'I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.'" St. Augustine of Hippo ("Sermon 295," c. 411 A.D.)
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church...' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus...." St. Augustine of Hippo ("Letter 53," 412 A.D.)
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" St. Augustine of Hippo ("Commentary on John," c. 416 A.D.)

Pope St. Gregory the Great 590-604
"As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city." (Lib. ix., Ep. 12);and again, "If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility." (Lib. ix., Ep. 59)
"Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?...Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles...received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate." (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)

Asterius, Bishop of Amasea
"In order that He may show His power, God has endowed none of His disciples with gifts like Peter. But having raised him with heavenly gifts, He has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit... The Savior confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times, 'Lovest thou Me?' And he received the world in charge, as one flock and shepherd, having heard, 'Feed My lambs'; and the Lord gave, well nigh in His own stead, that most faithful disciple to the proselytes as a father, and shepherd and instructor."

St. John Chrysostom :
"He [Peter] was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the Apostles, the leader of the band...Jesus put into his hands the chief authority among the brethren...For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only does not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks...for Peter greatly loved John...When therefore Christ had foretold great things to him, and committed the world to him, and spoke beforehand of his martyrdom, and testified that his love was greater than all the others..." (Hom. 88 on St. John).

Council of Chalcedon
"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]). "After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken

"It is to Peter that He says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church' (Matthew 16:18). Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal." St. Ambrose of Milan ("Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David" c. 389 A.D.)

prayer and the communion of saints

One thing I love about the church is the communion of saints. As a protestant the idea of asking favors from dead people seemed a bit offensive to me. Is it not rude to ask someone of lesser power for help when we can go directly to Him? Plus nowhere do we see clearly said in the bible that these saints can hear or help us.

Good objections. But now I have a slightly different perspective. Here are the basic answers that helped me at least open my mind to considering my relationship to those who have gone before me. First of all, the saints are not dead people. "But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32) The saints are alive in Christ. Christ has conquered death. "Death has been swallowed up in victory." 55"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15) So death is more an illusion to us living than a reality. We are really more alive than ever after death.

Secondly, we do not necessarily pray to the saints or ask them to work their personal power for us independently of God and His will. No, we ask the saints to pray for us. This, to me, makes the issue a lot more workable. Some ask, why not go directly to Jesus? Good question. I say, why not go directly to Jesus and have others pray for us. Are we limited to one or the other? Who among us has never asked for prayer from a friend or prayed for a friend? We all do this. Does this take away from Christ's role as intercessor or mediator? No. It shows we love one another and our prayers are pleasing to God. God has willed that we participate in His kingdom work through prayer.

So if the saints are alive and can pray for us, should we not want this? I love what this verse says in James 5, "15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." (emphasis mine) Now who is more righteous than a saint. They are so close to God and understand His will and ways better than we do. They will know how to pray for us better than we will.

The purpose of this practice is not to replace God, but to bind us together more richly as a family. Did you know that the mass is seen as a timeless celebration between heaven in earth shared in by the saints and angels? That is wonderful. We are the body of Christ. Listen to these words from 1 Corinthians 12:
"12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it."

Why say that we do not need the saints? They do not cease to be members of Christ's body after they die. I think God designed it so that we would need them. (Other arguments for the Catholic Church can be taken from this passage. "one body...baptized by one Spirit into one body...no division in the body...")

I love Hebrews 11. It runs through a history of great men and women of faith and goes on in verse one of chapter 12 to say " 1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. "

We are surrounded by these people. Still. Another interesting passage is that of the transfiguration. Jesus seemed to have no problem communicating with Moses and Elijah. The thing to remember is that it is all about Jesus. Everyone we honor and love alive or dead from this world we honor to know and appreciate Jesus more. We help one another to find Jesus. We do not seek praise for ourselves (though we struggle with ego) but want to be stretcher bearers entrusting one another to Christ and his healing power. By loving our neighbors we are loving Jesus. The saints show us examples of how to overcome in this world for Christ. We long to imitate their victories over sin through the power of the Spirit.

Look at this passage in Revelation 5. "Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. " Then later in chapter 6, "9When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" 11Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer"

In Revelation these martyrs are very aware of what is going on and concerned for their brethren. Any other examples? A few. See how these apply to prayer and the idea of interceding and sacrificing for one another. From 1 John 5, " 16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death."

Colossians 1:24 " 24Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."

We suffer for one another somehow mystically helping each other. Not because Christ's atonement was not enough or could not be enough. He willed to bind us together this way and leave crucial roles for us to play in the salvation of our friends and family.

Look at this in Job1, "4 His sons used to take turns holding feasts in their homes, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would send and have them purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, "Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts." This was Job's regular custom. "

Job offered atonement for his family. Does it say this is not acceptable? No, Job was considered a righteous man for such practices. Look later on in Job 42. "7 After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the LORD told them; and the LORD accepted Job's prayer. "

This was the old Testament, but the same God. Sometimes we can help eachother and sacrifice for one another. Of course each is responsible for his own sin, repentance, faith, and obedience but we can help each other more than we realize. All we suffer and sacrifice can be offered on behalf of our friends and family for conversion. I believe the faithful departed saints still play a role. Yes ,only Jesus and his sacrifice and the grace of God truly make salvation possible, but He willed that we would work together in this way.

Biblical passages: Baptism, Eucharist, Mary, Pope

BAPTISM

1 peter 3 - he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Baptism now saves you. Catholics take this literally whereas others ignore the plain meaning and explain verses like that as something symbolic.
Compare that with Romans 6 about the resurrection saving us in baptism.

3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

I love taking these passages literally. They make a lot of sense to me. That when we were baptized something real took place. Think, when Jesus was baptized something very amazing happened. He began His ministry and the Spirit descended and got Him ready. However, baptism does not guarantee eternal salvation, but it marks the beginning of salvation.

Note baptism compared with circumcision which was given to infants!
Colossians 2: 11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

The passage in John 3 is a passage the early church took to mean as a reference to baptism.
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Now check this out in comparison from Ezekiel 36.
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 29 I will save you from all your uncleanness.

Notice the spirit and water. Amazing. The original interpretation of this being born again in John 3 is not some conversion experience or asking Jesus into your heart. It is talking about baptism. Baptism actually does something to us. Born of the water and the spirit. These symbols are being very directly used in the gospel. So rich.

Check out these blatant references to baptism's power.
Acts 22 16And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

and from Christ Himself in Mark 16
16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

One more picture from the old testament.
2 kings 5: 13 Naaman's servants went to him and said, "My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, 'Wash and be cleansed'!" 14 So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.

THE EUCHARIST

Melchizedek is a mysterious priest mentioned in Genesis who was greater than Abraham.

"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!" And Abram gave him a tenth of everything." (Genesis 14:18-20)

Hebrews 5: 5So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father. "6And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."7During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Note the bread and the wine being brought out in Genesis. hmm. Communion reference maybe?
This is an important one to look at from John.
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."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.60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Eat his flesh and drink His blood. Is he kidding or do we do this somehow? And if He is only speaking figuratively, why not correct Himself? People actually left Him because of this teaching. I think he might have further explained it if it meant something else. He corrected the woman at the well when she took the water to mean literal water. Or Nicodemus who took being born again to be a literal second birth from his mother's womb as we saw earlier.
What happened earlier in John 6...walking on water...feeding of 5,000. These events in the context prove Jesus can do miraculous things with His body and with food. Also the turning of water into wine is also a picture of some sort of change of substance being possible. Is it too hard to believe His literal flesh can be multiplied and eaten by us?

The feeding of 5,000 has to be a picture of this super essential bread from heaven that now comes to us weekly in the Mass. In fact the Greek term in the Lord’s prayer for daily bread itself is a mysterious term that can mean our daily needs but literally translates to super essential bread. Could it be Eucharistic reference? I think so.
Evidence that the feeding of the thousands is a Eucharistic sign is found in the similar language Mark uses in comparing the two events. First the feeding in chapter 6.
39Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. 40So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties. 41Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people.
Compare with the actual institution of the Eucharist in Mark 14.
22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." (emphasis mine)

Emphasis mine. I always wanted to say that. Anyway, took bread, gave thanks, broke it, gave it. How can Mark not be trying to show Eucharistic meaning in the account of the feeding? An event twice shown in his gospel with the same language. In light of this and church history it is easy to see that the Eucharist was to be seen as a miraculous feeding and satisfying of our souls. Also note that Jesus says 'this is my body.'

Also, these stories of feeding the multitudes are recorded 6 times in the gospel. More than any other event or miracle. This tells us something about its significance to the early church.

One more from 1 Corinthians 10.
14Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.18Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.

Ok, so now look. First it speaks of a literal participation in the body and blood of Christ. Wow. And compares it to pagan sacrifices which are eaten, not to mention the fact that communion is also a fulfillment from the old testament of the Passoverer meal! Our religion is still a sacrificial system. But it is one and the same sacrifice eternally offered and able to be eternally effective. No more dying takes place, but that passage right there compares the Lord's supper with pagan sacrifice. Why would it do this if our Eucharist is not to be also seen as a sacrifice. Jesus is not killed again, but the sacrifice is made present once more. Therefore Hebrews is not violated when it says that there is only one sacrifice for sins.

Watch what happens as Jesus appears after the resurrection in Luke 24. When do the disciples recognize him?
28As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. 29But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"

I love this. And now we recognize our Lord in the breaking of bread!

Check this one out too. After Jesus dies in John 19.
34Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

He specifically mentions the water and blood and that someone else can validate it. Now John's gospel is the most symbolic and mystical. Could not the water and blood refer to the sacraments of baptism and communion? Church Father John Chrysostm thinks so:"..There came out water and blood. The one was a symbol of baptism, and the other of the mysteries. Therefore, he did not say: There came out blood and water (John 19:34), but first water came forth and then blood, since first comes baptism and then the mysteries."

MARY

John 19 25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

If Jesus had other brothers by law they would have had to take care of Mary. So I do not think she had any other children. I think this also alludes to a more profound meaning for us. We all are in a sense the beloved disciple and called to take Mary as our Mother.

Might this passage from revelation 12 be speaking of Mary?
A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days. ....13When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach. 15Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring, those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Who are the woman's offspring? Us. We are her children.

There are lots of the Mary references in the Old Testament too. I love this on comparing Mary to the Ark of the Covenant.

As the ark of the Covenant bore the Presence of God in the time of ancient Israel, so Mary bears God's presence. She is thus the Living Ark of the New Covenant.St. Luke also draws a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant in the account of the Visitation (Luke 1:39-52). Compare it to 2 Samuel 6:4-16, where David tries to bring the original Ark into Jerusalem. Both the ark and Mary are on a journey. David dances before the ark; John leaps in his mother's womb. David says "How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?" (2 Sa 6:9); Elizabeth says "Who am I, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Lk 1:43). The ark stayed in the house of Obededom for three months (2 Sa 6:11); Mary stayed in Elizabeth's house for three months (Lk 1:56)

I think that is amazing.

Note the comparisons of Genesis 1 with John 1.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

Note in Genesis the days of creation. In John you see this,
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!...35The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"..... 43The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, "Follow me."

See the comparisons to Genesis and creation.

More on Mary from John 2.
1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."5His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

If we listen to Mary and honor her, we get this great advice. "Do whatever He tells you." Actually in a sense we are Jesus brothers and Mary is His mother. We are called to honor our mother. Anyway, note what else happens. Mary asks Jesus to do something, and He does not refuse her. Could this not be a picture of her now praying and asking favors for us?

Note another Genesis comparison. What does Jesus call Mary? "Dear Woman." This is not a derogatory term but one of respect. Note the comparison to Eve as John is showing Mary as the new Eve. Genesis 2
3 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,"

Adam and Eve brought sin into the world. Eve first ate then Adam. Now Mary is the new Eve who says yes to God and Jesus the New Adam redeeming creation.

Also, is Jesus a king? Who is queen of a Jewish kingdom? The kings mother. I kings 2:
"Very well," replied Bathsheba, "I will speak to the king for you." Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king's mother, who sat at his right. "There is one small favor I would ask of you," she said. "Do not refuse me." "Ask it, my mother," the king said to her, "for I will not refuse you."

Psalm 45:9,
9 Daughters of kings are among your honored women; at your right hand is the royal bride in gold of Ophirthe queen mother stands at the right hand of the king, arrayed in gold.

Hebrews 1:8-9, 8But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Here psalm 45 is applied to Jesus as the Messianic King. So by extension, Psalm 45 refers to the queen mother of the Messiah, Mary.

PAPAL AUTHORITY

Matthew 16:
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

How can the protestant church be the church Jesus is referring to when it is so not united and lacks real authority? What pastor or individual do you know that can make decisions that bind and loose (disallow or allow, a teaching authority) in heaven?
The word for Peter is petros meaning rock. 'you are (rock) and on this rock I will build my church.' Jesus is saying something important about Peter. Anyway, note the old testament parallel again in Isaiah 22 with the keys given to the prime minister, an office meant to be continuously filled, like that of the pope.
20 "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

Jesus was fulfilling something. The Church is not supposed to be radically different from Judaism, but the fulfillment of it with feasts and sacraments and liturgical celebrations. What church looks like this today and has existed since the time of the apostles?Also note that Jesus changes Peter's name. Name changes are significant in scripture. Interesting comparisons can be made with Joseph in Genesis and Moses.
Joseph interprets the meaning of Pharoah's dream. Something that was divinely inspired (like Peter's confession). As a result he is given a name change and authority. In kingdoms it was common for the king to entrust authority to someone special. We are living in a kingdom, not a democracy.
Moses also had a divine revelation on a mountain (Peter's confession) and was given a teaching authority to be passed on by tradition. The seat of Moses, a tradition Jesus even asked people to adhere to. Christianity is an extension and fulfillment of Jewish practice and history. We each have Passover, circumcision, manna from heaven, a lamb of God, both had a system of authority and tradition in place before the scriptures were written. The church is Judaism fulfilled. Jesus says in Matthew 5, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

It is also important to note that Peter's name is always first on th elist of apostles with Judas' being last. In Acts Peter is clearly shown to be the leader in the church and makes the binding ruling at the first council (not james who only makes a final statement) Also Peter's name is mentioned far more often than that of any other apostle.

Observe the significance of these verses from Luke 22 in light of what we have seen:
31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Jesus is specifically singling out Peter and the need for his faith to be strong. Satan is specifically wanting to attack this man. Why? Peter turns back after denying Jesus three times and Jesus reiterates Peter's role in taking care of the church of strengthening his brothers in John 21.
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." 18Jesus said, "Feed my sheep." (emphasis mine)

I will leave it at this. I hope you enjoyed some of it. I do not mean to pick a fight with anyone, simply to present some teachings I enjoy and personally believe.

Eucharistic adoration

The more I embrace the thought of the real presence in the Eucharist; that the Eucharist actually is Jesus Christ- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity - the more joy I have for my newfound faith. People can think that ritual and Catholicism and the Mass is meaningless and boring, but I would disagree. The fact that a miracle takes place at every mass, that you can unite yourself to Jesus and take Him into your heart and soul in such a profound way amazes me.

Christianity is all about Jesus. The incarnation. The Mass is the best place to see this and experience it personally. I learned as an evangelical Christian to love Jesus and His words. To seek conformity to Him. To want to obey Him and be close with Him. This was all excellent advice and I am forever grateful for it and the formation it gave me spiritually and is completely essential to our growth as Christians, but now I know that I can do even more. I can be in His presence. I can adore Him. I can be fed and nurtured by him in a supernatural sacramental way. I know faith is more spiritual than physical, but I think God likes to come down to our level and bless us in spiritual ways through matter. This is what a sacrament is. This is the incarnation in a sense. Jesus came in the manger as a humble babe. Now we receive Him in the humble form of bread in the manger of our souls.

Now, before I had even received communion I was able to experience the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I see it in the Bible and in the early church and in the testimonies of so many drawn to or back to the Catholic faith. But there was also another way. Eucharistic adoration. I go to a chapel where the host is exposed 24 hours a day and never left alone. Always, someone is there keeping Him company in worship. All distractions aside and the room is filled mostly with only one thing: love. Love toward Him and love from Him and His presence which is love itself. Something draws people to do this and keep it going. Jesus is really there. I feel this is where I need to be more regularly. I am drawn there. I am able to pray with much more focus and clarity. I feel as if I am more in tune with Jesus. That I am made more aware of His encouragement and peace. I learn new things, or realize something that applies directly to a situation I am going through. One of my main motivations for becoming Catholic is because I believe it is where I can best be near Jesus and love Him. It is where the Jesus I have always known and love most reveals Himself to me and where I can actually ponder the reality of His incarnation, life, death, and resurrection and be changed. If Jesus is in the Eucharist, It is where we should want to be.

The Church

Warning: this is probably the most argumentative message on my views. I did not invite anybody here to alienate or offend them. But it is my page so I like having the freedom to share my opinions and beliefs. So if you read know that I intend peace, friendship, and honest discussion.

Anyway, since I am continually adjusting to this whole Catholic thing, I often wonder exactly when I knew I was converting. Conversion is difficult. It is tough to say when you are sure you can change from something to something else. Especially when you had so many doubts, fears and skepticism toward the view you are now attempting to call home. I know looking back that there were hints all along at where I was going, but I couldn't see that until I started letting my guard down and started to trust the Church that had I built such distrust for over the years. This distrust was largely due to misconceptions, prejudices, and lack of information but also existed for some valid reasons as the Catholic Church has had some scandal throughout its history. Ironically, the weaknesses now seem to be signs of strength to me. The fact that despite all the corruption, scandal, and at times sinful leaders, you can find a church that believes the same now as it did in its earliest stages is a great testimony of God's grace and mercy and love for us. That the gates of hell can not and will not prevail against the church. Man's sin can make it more difficult to perceive of the truth of the Church but it can never alter, or ruin the deeper reality.

I think that the Catholic Church is the only Christian body that we can see as being set up by Jesus. I believe that it is a fact of History that only the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church) can even claim to be the actual church that was started on Pentecost. You may argue that the Church is the body of believers and not a physical or existing visible group. Yet historically there was a visible church structure that started on Pentecost, was led by Peter, made the first authoritative decisions in the book of Acts, cannonized scripture, defined key doctrines on the nature of Christ and the Trinity, and existed without significant schism for 1,000 years (and then another 500 until the reformation).

This same Church exists today. This same Church can trace her roots back to the apostles - unbroken. Before rejecting Catholicism, I think one owes it an opportunity to present itself and its ideas fairly because it is the only Church (besides Orthodox) that can say it ties all the way back to Peter and the apostles and can show you evidence. Christ said to Peter that He was going to build a church. Paul in II Timothy calls the church the "pillar and foundation of truth." Do you think this is possible? When you think about these claims and then see the history of the Church I believe it is possible to conclude that the Church truly is a real, visible, structured, ecclesiastical, apostolic, and authoritative reality. That it has authority to bind and loose. That we have been led to truth and unity as Christ prayed for.

To me, the protestant model and idea of church structure (if one can even be presented since their would be so many disagreements among protestants) does not jive well biblically or historically. No protestant denomination even existed until the 16th century and each one has changed much of what was originally taught in the Church. This is why Lutherans and Anglicans look a lot more like the Catholic church than Baptists or for example. This is not reformation but reinvention. It is not reclaiming old truths but inventing new interpretations of what they would like the church to have been. Where did they have the authority? They say scripture, but if this were the true and the correct model then surely larger groups would see the clear meaning and interpretation of scripture and be more united. There would be only a handful of denominations instead of the hundreds and hundreds (possibly thousands) of choices for today's Christian to choose from. This shows me that, for one thing, scripture alone was not intended to be the highest authority for a church (though scripture is as highly authoritative as anything else and can not be contradicted). Secondly, that there is a real lack of authority outside the Catholic faith. If I do not like my pastor's or congregations beliefs I can go elsewhere or even start my own church. This makes things like heresy and even cults more and more possible and exposes people to more and more dangerous practices and views. I believe the point of a Church and of our faith is to be united in Christ and in the truth. To strive to be of one mind as the Bible says. Jesus prayed that we may be one. He left the church with authority. Would that authority not continue to be necessary after the Apostles died? Otherwise, there would be no certainty that the canonization of scripture was an infallible decision. When you see that the same church started still exists today and exercises that authority I feel that it is not so tough to trust it.

If certain teachings and interpretations of scripture did not exist for 1,500 years until you or your favorite church leader discovered them, or if you are going to throw away or largely change practices, liturgies, and sacraments that have existed in the church for 1,500 years, is that not an extremely bold move that would require completely convincing proof that you could be trusted? What authority does any individual have to make such a change? I am sure that they believe it is clear from scripture, but really they are elevating what they personally think the scripture says from the safeguard of sacred tradition and basically telling us that true Christianity did not even exist until they came on the scene and revealed it to us. If any denominations' beliefs are correct, I think there should be significant historical evidence that there were the same practices believed and followed in early Christianity. Would God have let the real church, real faith, real meaning of teachings be so hidden for so long from so many faithful followers of Him after all He accomplished with His life, death, and resurrection?

I used to think that the Catholic Church simply added things to the scripture. That Christianity was alright until the church obscured it. The Catholic Church shows us writings on early Church practice and thought written by men who knew the apostles and were martyred for the faith. Their beliefs were Catholic. There were no other denominations, theologies, or choices aside from heretical groups who did not survive. If the Church went wrong, when was it? How could Christianity have survived if the church was so heretical by the end of the first or second century? How could we trust these men to give us the cannon of scripture and fight the early heresies regarding Jesus and the Trinity, yet not accept much anything else they taught and proved by their example and success amidst persecution?

If one wants to behold the glorious history of the fathers of the early church one has to wrestle with Catholic men and women who preserved the faith. To defend many protestant views one has to argue that the very men who handed down the faith in the generations after the apostles were incorrect and that we know more than they did using the very scriptures handed down to us by them. If they knew which books truly taught Christian doctrine how could they not know what Christian doctrine truly was at the time and how it was demonstrated through those very scriptures?

why catholic?

I was born into a Christian family and baptized in a Methodist church. I can never remember a time where I did not have faith in Christianity. I had some troubles in elementary school and my parents were advised to send me to a private school. I was sent to a Christian school. In my 7th or 8th grade year I was first told about the idea of asking Jesus to be in your heart and being your personal savior. I think I did this after a scary end of the world type movie they showed us. Granted this method of evangelism is not a favorite of mine now, but at the time it helped me be sure I wanted to be a Christian. I was later confirmed into the Methodist church my 8th grade year.

Things were very normal for a few years. I did not live strongly for or against God. Toward the latter half of my school years, I noticed that many of my friends were smoking pot. I was a musician and many people told me that this drug could enhance my ability to hear music and be creative. I eventually tried it and convinced myself that it wasn’t that bad a thing to do. But what started out as a once in a while thing for me in my junior year became a daily routine by graduation. At first this was fun but soon it began to have its negative consequences.

A few years prior to this development in my life, my family had switched from the Methodist church to a more upbeat entertaining Baptist church with more in depth preaching and teaching. I saw radical change in my mother’s life due to her exposure to the faith of this community. However, as I got more into drugs, I wanted to avoid Church and God entirely. My mom stopped forcing me to go to church when I was 17 or so, and I did indeed make use of this freedom. I was trying to avoid religious discussions or references and trying to ignore any objections that my conscience may have been trying to make. I would lie in bed at night and ponder my eternal destiny.

So this brings us to an extremely significant moment in God reclaiming my life. My family had just gotten what is now a part of everyone’s life. The internet. It was slow and hooked up to our TV. So one night after coming home I decided to research my favorite bands. Well I somehow stumbled onto a page about the jazz artist John Coltrane. It was about an album of worship to God that he made called "A Love Supreme." It is very powerful. Even though I was in a phase of avoiding all religious material, something softened my heart to want to know what this was all about.

As I read, I was clearly aware of God’s presence with me in a powerful way. The story of Coltrane's life, spirituality, and musical pursuit was similar to mine. I felt so much love and inspiration in a way that maybe I never had before. I felt the call to do what this man did. I knew I had to give up drugs and regain my earlier dependence and love for God and offer all that I was including my musical pursuits to Him. I realized that God was the creator of music and it was for His glory and I loved Him for making it possible. I saw that John Coltrane made some of the most inspiring music out of wanting to love God. I realized that I was settling for less in using drugs to enjoy what I could share more deeply with God. I acknowledged that I had truly known deep in my heart that I had been sinful and distant from God for months. I truly repented and felt the burden lifted from my soul. I was free and I sensed purpose in my life. This was just after high school.

I started to appreciate the Bible and simply being a Christian. I greatly enjoyed our Baptist church. However, a lot of unanswered questions mounted over the years about the bible and differing theologies, and I grew to feel less comfortable with the services as well in various ways. However, at that time the Catholic Church was not an option. I did not think all of its members were beyond salvation, but I did think that they would have to be saved despite all their unnecessary Catholic beliefs and practices. So I did not consider looking into their views much when I was trying to gain perspective on a given theological issue.

Well, one day I found out a good friend from the Baptist church was going to become Catholic. I was shocked. I was used to seeing Catholics leave the Catholic Church and join ours and talk of how they had found true saving faith in Jesus. So I figured I ought to try to convince him that he was making a mistake. After this attempt I was still thought I was correct, but I gained some respect for some of his defenses of and arguments for the Catholic faith. I realized for the first time that it was not just an open and shut case. That there were two actual sides and not just one obviously correct side. I was a little jarred. Maybe I would consider Catholicism...? He gave me some books about Catholicism and then moved away to pursue college.

Shortly after this, I went to go see another friend play in a band. This was a Catholic contemporary worship band that he had somehow gotten involved with. I left in the middle of one of the sets and found a Catholic bookstore in the building. I picked up some booklets, not sure if I wanted to believe or discredit them. A part of me may have wanted the Catholic Church to be right though I was very afraid of it and arguing somewhat with the store owner. Well this nice man started telling me about the Catechism (book explaining Catholic beliefs in detail). I wanted this book but I did not want to buy it. I felt myself say a prayer that I would not normally pray or necessarily recommend, but it just happened faster than I could affirm or deny it. I prayed, "God if you want me to become Catholic I pray that this man will give me his copy of the catechism." And lo and behold, he indeed gave me his personal copy. After talking to him years later I found out he felt a unique compelling in his heart to give me his book, and that it was the only time he gave out his personal copy which he was quite attached to. I did not think this exactly settled the matter though or become Catholic soon after that. I do not think we should base such a serious decision on one interesting event or prayer, but rather on much prayer and discernment. But the moment stuck with me and the book he gave me proved helpful later.

Well, in the weeks after this event I wrestled with Catholic doctrine but after some research into anti-Catholic sources I eventually decided I could not accept Catholic belief. I was glad to have survived the scare and went back to my evangelical life feeling confident that the Catholic Church was not the truth and still possibly dangerous, but at least respecting it more than I had previously.

A few more years go by with no serious changes until many of my friends were becoming enamored with more traditional approaches to Christianity. I also met a few converts to the Orthodox Church. Many of my closest friends from college were attending an Anglican church under African leadership. They were showing me all the beauty and life in liturgical and sacramental worship. Things I previously thought would hinder one's spiritual growth. It was also the first time I became aware that this liturgical and sacramental view of things was more historically rooted than the other practices and beliefs that I had been participating in which were really alterations to what had been consistent Christian thought and practice. I was happy and moved away more so from my Baptist thought and practice and started feeling quite at home.

I loved this church and felt spiritual growth here. I realized that earlier Christian historical sources were not to be ignored. I learned that the Eucharist from the earliest times was the very essence of Christian worship. I also saw that belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist could be shown from the first few generations of Christian writers and how this doctrine can be supported in the Bible. I was so happy. I started considering the Orthodox Church (which was united to the Catholic Church till 1054 and is very similar) because I figured that if the Anglican Church was good and strongly rooted in tradition, maybe I could belong to a Church that existed since the beginning. I still thought I was unable to get past many Catholic doctrines so I was not looking to go that direction, but I became more aware of an increasing acceptance of some Catholic thought and happy that I could think more Catholic or enjoy Catholic writings or concepts without actually being Catholic. It felt great to be able to understand the beauty in the various expressions of the Christian faith.

I really wanted to stay Anglican or become Orthodox. I greatly admired the Orthodox and considered them as potentially being a more faithful Apostolic Church than the Catholic Church. I still love the Orthodox Church. I learned a lot from them and am appreciative of their witness but I could not become convinced that I should be an Orthodox Christian, though I felt very close. As a result of living as an Anglican and embracing Orthodox thought I did not realize how much closer to Catholicism I was actually getting.

But I was still not yet very seriously open to the Catholic Church. However, from this point on a lot started happening in a short period. I had begun watching EWTN (catholic television network). I found a show that really interested me. It is called The Journey Home. There is a new guest each week sharing his or her story of entering the Catholic Church. These stories were very compelling. I could not deny that these were good people sincerely seeking truth and often coming into the Catholic Church despite earlier prejudice. I had seen many Catholics convert to the evangelical church but I heard little from the opposite camp aside from my friend Paul many years ago. The stories of those coming to the Catholic faith impressed me significantly on various intellectual and spiritual levels. I was very confident that they were indeed led by God's Grace to Catholicism. That this was possible.

So one day, I went into my storage space and dug out the Catechism and Catholic apologetic books lI had been given but never seriously read before. One was a book by Thomas Howard called Lead Kindly Light. Now if I had read this before it would have made little sense to me, but at this time several years later it spoke loud and clear. Basically this guy’s journey was like mine. He was an anti-catholic fundamentalist Christian, then he discovered the beauty of traditional Christian thought and practice in the Anglican Church, and eventually he was drawn into the Catholic Church. I was scared but I prayed the prayer that started him toward the Catholic Church. It was simply, "lead kindly light." I told God that I would consider taking small steps in investigating the Catholic Church but that I wanted Him to put roadblocks in my path if this offended Him in any way.

Around this time I went to a Catholic mass for the first time in years, and definitely for the first time with any actual interest in it. I really was at peace there. Also, this was the first time I heard a litany of asking the saints to pray for us. It was set to music and it was so beautiful that I sort of understood that saints were part of my family and praying for us. I still was not comfortable praying to any saints personally, but this softened me a little to the idea. It was a good day for me.

I kept reading and asking questions. One book Paul gave me was making a lot of sense. It was called "Upon This Rock" by Steven K. Ray. It is an in depth defense of the Papacy. I was opposed to the Catholic notion of a Pope. This book showed me through early church History and Biblical texts that the notion of a Pope could be strongly argued for. I was starting to see that Catholics really did love Scripture and used it to support their teachings. I saw that tradition and scripture do not go against each other but help clarify one another.

I had come to see the Bible as a book that came from the tradition of the Church. As a protestant I believed that the Bible clearly disproved Catholicism. Now I was seeing the Catholic faith in the Bible and acceptable explanations of passages I thought disproved Catholicism. Evangelicals who argue against tradition often do not recognize that the very Bible they love is the product of such tradition. The Church predates the canon of Scripture and without an authoritative church the very bible so many use to disprove the Catholic Church would not have existed.

I was impressed to learn Many of the church Fathers knew or were a generation away from the apostles. I believe that those closest to the source know more about the Bible than I would. I also came to believe that the reformers' idea of Scripture alone as a source of authority has failed. Without help in interpreting scripture people can not agree on many elements essential to salvation and church authority, and a number of issues and have split thousands of times. Without someone to guard the scriptures many cults and dangerous teachings manipulate people to this day using the bible for support. Can the Bible teach clearly without others in authority to protect us from our personal weaknesses? I admire my Baptist background and their love of scripture, but I realized that their interpretations are indeed far different than the earliest interpretations of the Christian faith. I was most impressed by the fact that the church was essentially united for over 1000 years. I was even more impressed to see how well the current Catholic doctrine held up to what I saw early Christian writing. That various protestant traditions did not go back to earlier Christianity, but made more and more changes to what it originally had been. If the reformation position is correct it would mean that there were essentially no correctly practicing Christians during several hundreds of years and that God only allowed the true faith to be discovered 1500+ years after the book of Acts. This does not seem possible to me.

So I was getting real scared. I longed to belong to an unbroken Apostolic church. It made sense to me to want to believe that the faith has been preserved instead of trying to piece it together from hundreds of sources. That perhaps this is what Jesus promised. Still I had many questions so I sought help from Catholic websites and discussion boards. I was asking my tough questions and getting closer to accepting the doctrines and practices I previously thought were unacceptable. All the while, I was running into a lot of coincidental things that seemed to be more than just coincidental. Much of what I read or researched or experienced would in very unique ways speak to me or come about in very timely ways. I find it important to base faith on truth and not just personal experience, but I do not doubt that God was leading and encouraging me through some of these because I was so afraid of the Catholic Church. I was afraid it was idolatrous. So I think God really wanted to show me He was with me and encouraging me to keep seeking Him in the Catholic Church.

Then the Advent season of 2005 came. At this point I lived too far from my Anglican church to go there regularly, but I longed to experience the Advent season. The only thing I could think of that would be similar to my Anglican church would be going to Mass. So I found a friend who I could go to mass with, who also was a good support in my journey. I was amazed at how much I loved these masses. I truly felt God’s presence and loved being there. It was the first time I was regularly attending mass.

So towards the end of Advent I was looking for a church to go to on Christmas Eve. I had no idea where it would be but I wanted something close to my house. In one of my guitar lessons a student of mine mentioned that he was in CCD and I noticed that he was actually taking it serious. I asked him what parish he went to so I could possibly go to midnight mass there on Christmas Eve. The priest gave a great homily and the service was great. I left church excited and thinking that I really could possibly be Catholic someday. On the way home I had a strong desire to turn around and go back to the church and meet the priest. I really thought he might be able to help me. I drove back and saw him finishing one last conversation and then I told him a quick synopsis of my situation. We met a handful of times and this proved quite helpful as well as I continued to ponder the issues.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle in my faith was Catholic devotion to Mary. Though I was open to respecting her, I was still uncomfortable with her. I simply would pray that God would help me to know if it was okay to speak with and love Mary. I was scared but saw the possible benefits of her intercession. There are a lot of interesting references in scripture that the Church identifies her in that really made me think. After more study and prayer I felt increasingly confident and happy about the role she plays in our Christian life. There are certain experiences that I will never forget where her motherly care was made so apparent to me and I just knew that this devotion to her is a very beautiful part of the faith. Catholics look to her for prayer and support but are never to worship her. I saw her role is not to distract from God but that her soul "magnifies the Lord" and enables those who seek her help to love and worship her Divine Son all the more. She desires us to increasingly know and love and obey Jesus and helps us in that pursuit.

I saw that she is seen as not only given by Jesus to be John's mother but mother to us all at the foot of the cross. I saw that she is seen as the woman clothed in the sun in revelation 12. I saw that she is the new Eve who through obedience to God brought countered the effects of Eve’s disobedience. I saw her intercession at Cana with the water and the wine showing her intercession to Christ for others. I saw her pictured as the Ark of the Covenant where God was present. Indeed as David danced for joy before the ark, so John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb. I saw that the queen in the Jewish kingdom was not the king’s wife but his mother; and how people would approach the queen to ask the king for favors. Mary is in the bible if one is willing to look for it with an open mind listening to what God had revealed to the early church. It also helped me that the catechism makes it clear that her goodness is from God and she is not to be worshipped. Her main significance is to bring Jesus to us and to bring us to Jesus.

So in April of 2006 I think I was finally convinced that I knew where I wanted to be. I was ready to commit to membership classes which took place in the fall and formally was confirmed at the Easter Vigil of 2007. Since then I have discovered that there are Eastern Catholic churches which follow the liturgies and practices of the Orthodox Church while remaining united to the Catholic Church. This has been a perfect place for me to land with my respect for Eastern Christianity and conviction in Catholicism.

I see a lot of good things happening in the Catholic Church. Also I feel the prayers, disciplines, church calendar and sacramental life of the church are helping me so much in my relationship with Jesus.

I still have much gratitude and respect to my evangelical background and realize that the time spent there taught me much invaluable information. I do not regret that portion of my life and I maintain some of those friendships. I would hardly have suspected years ago that my life would take this direction. I am amazed at God enabling me to jump over the difficult and confusing questions. I hope all sides will learn more to respect and learn from each other. My hope for non-Catholics is that they will consider what the Church teaches from its perspective before sealing their opinion. The Catholic Church makes claims that are of tremendous significance for us if they are true.