The Catholic Church: A Friendly Discussion with Our Catholic Friends (Part 2b)

 

The Catholic Church

The Catholic Church 

A Friendly Discussion with Our Catholic Friends

(Part 2b)

  1. Priestly Celibacy

Everyone is well aware of the Catholic requirement of priestly celibacy.  “According to the Code of Canon Law for the Latin rite, celibacy is required of candidates for the priesthood.”[1] The Vatican II Council stated that celibacy “accords with the priesthood on many scores.”[2] Catholic apologists Chacon and Burnham acknowledge, “The Church only forbids marriage, as a matter of discipline, to those men who choose to become priests.  No one is forced into the priesthood.”[3]  The reason why this requirement is a “discipline” and not a “doctrine” is that they admit that this is not found in Scripture (thus not a “doctrine”) but they feel justified in imposing and enforcing celibacy as a “discipline.”  Since they have the “Pope” and the Church Magisterium, they believe they have the freedom to impose these laws on their members apart from Biblical instruction.

The outcome of this imposed celibacy on priests and others in the Holy Orders has been morally disastrous.  We all have heard of the homosexuality and pedophilia and other forms of fornication of which priests have been guilty, both in the United States and in other countries.  This moral problem dates from the Middle Ages, something that any good church history book will document.

This Catholic requirement of their priesthood is unscriptural (of course, priesthood itself is also unscriptural).  Paul would say, “If they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7:9).  We do know that Jesus said that one may voluntarily remain unmarried and celibate throughout life.  They are unmarried “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:12).  But this was entirely voluntary and not imposed.  Paul also expressed benefits to Christians, in general, remaining unmarried to be able to give undistracted devotion to the Lord.  Although the apostle mentions the benefits of celibacy and the unmarried state, he does not impose this on anyone (cf. 1 Cor. 7:7, 8, 25-26, 28-35, 38, 40).[4]

One of the interesting points regarding priesthood celibacy relates to God’s requirement of His elders or overseers.  Catholic doctrine states that the priest is to be equated with the New Testament “elder” and the bishop is to be equated with the New Testament “overseer.”  In both cases, Catholic Canon Law states that these priestly persons must be celibate.  Ironically, the Biblical term “elder” is from the Greek, presbuteros, meaning “an old man, an elder.”[5]  “Overseer” (or bishop) is from episkopos, and means “overseer.”  Both terms refer to the same position—and the one who fills the position of elder/overseer/shepherd must be a family man, with wife and children (1 Timothy 3:1-5; Titus 1:5-6)!  In contrast, the priest is forbidden to marry or have children!  The bishop (including the Pope) is also forbidden from being married and having children!  Far from being celibate, these early Christian leaders were married men!

It is interesting to note that Peter, whom Catholics regard as the first Pope, was a married man (cf. Matt. 8:14).  Paul says that Cephas (Peter) would “take along a believing wife”—thus he was married (1 Corinthians 9:5).  The Catholic Church seeks to justify priestly celibacy by saying that Peter left his wife and became celibate.  They cite Peter’s statement to Christ: “Behold, we have left everything and followed You” (Matt. 19:27).  Peter, however, wrote, “You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor. . .” (1 Peter 3:8).  This would sound hollow to his readers if, in fact, he had forsaken his wife![6]

Philip, who was appointed to serve in Jerusalem (Acts 6:5-6) and was also a proclaimer (evangelist), was a married man (Acts 21:8-9).  Although Paul himself was celibate (which would indicate that marriage was not required to be an apostle or evangelist), he writes that “the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas” were married men (1 Cor. 9:5).  The apostle also refers to false teachers who “forbid marriage” (1 Tim. 4:1-3).  Although this may be a reference to incipient Gnosticism, it is very applicable to Catholic teaching as well.

  1. The Mass

The Catholic Church

If you are a Catholic yourself, you know how central the Mass is to public (and private) Catholic Church meetings.  What does God think of this ritual and how should we view it?

In this ritual, “the sacrifice of the Lord is perpetuated over the centuries, the summit and source of all Christian worship and life.”  “The Liturgy of the Eucharist focuses on the central act of sacrifice in the consecration and on the Eucharistic banquet in Holy Communion.  The Liturgy of the Eucharist begins with the presentation of the gifts of bread and wine and prayers of offering by the priest; then follows the Eucharistic Prayer or Canon, the central portion of which is the act of consecration by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.”[7]   Another Catholic source says, “Our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood.  He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again.”[8]

Perhaps one of the most serious problems with the Mass is that Catholic theology claims that this ritual is a way of perpetuating the sacrifice through the centuries.  A Catechism of Christian Doctrine claims: “The Holy Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of the Cross, inasmuch as Christ, who offered Himself, a bleeding victim, on the Cross to His Heavenly Father, continues to offer Himself in an unbloody manner on the altar, through the ministry of His priests.”  “The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament and a sacrifice.  In the Holy Eucharist, under the appearances of break and wine, the Lord Jesus is contained, offered, and received.”[9]  It is clear that Catholicism teaches that the actual body and blood constitute a perpetual “sacrifice” that is offered to God.  Christ didn’t complete His sacrifice on the cross, for He continues to offer this sacrifice to God.

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) stated: “If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God . . . let him be anathema” (Canon 1).  The Catholic Church goes so far as to affirm (through the Council of Trent), “This sacrifice [of the Mass] is truly propitiatory. . . . For by this oblation the Lord is appeased. . . . and he pardons wrongdoing and sins, even grave ones.”[10]

In bold contrast to this, the Bible says that Jesus was the great High Priest before God who died for the forgiveness of our sins, and “this He did once for all when He offered up Himself” (Hebrews 7:27).  Again, notice these clear words: “He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God. . . . For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (10:12, 14).  Jesus “entered the holy place once for all,” through His blood, “having obtained eternal redemption” (9:12, cf. 26) Jesus offered Himself once for all!  The sacrifice for sin has been accomplished.  It is now completed.  On the cross, Jesus declared, “It is finished!” (John 19:30).  There is one and only one sacrifice—and it is completed.  It does not need to be continued, perpetuated, or offered up again!

While the Mass is thought to be “a true and real sacrifice,” the Bible says that the communion or the “breaking of bread” is simply a remembrance of the one sacrifice of 2,000 years ago.  According to Coffey, “The consequence of believing that the sacrifice of Christ is a continuous offering is devastating because it undermines what Jesus’ death achieved . . . . We cannot believe that Jesus secured our full pardon by the sacrifice of himself and also believe that the Mass is a continual offering of that same sacrifice.  The two views contradict each other.”[11] The communion or the Lord’s supper was not propitiatory, but it was a memorial of that great propitiation that Jesus accomplished on the cross.  Jesus Himself said, “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Corinthians 12:25; cf. Luke 22:19).  Just as the Passover meal was a memorial of the deliverance by God of Israel from Egyptian bondage, so the Lord’s communion was a memorial of the deliverance by Christ of His believers from sin’s slavery.

  1. Communion and Transubstantiation (the Eucharist)

The Catholic Church

The New Testament refers to the remembrance of Christ’s giving of His body and blood and the partaking of the loaf of bread and the cup of the fruit of the vine under different terms.  It is usually called “the breaking of bread” (cf. Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:23-24).  Perhaps it is called the “Lord’s supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20), although this is somewhat controversial.  It is called a “sharing” (or “communion”) of the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16) and “the table of the Lord” (v. 21).  The Catholic Church prefers (or insists on) using the term “Eucharist” which is an ecclesiastical term meaning “thanksgiving” (derived from the Greek eucharisto, “I give thanks”).[12]  This is taken from 1 Corinthians 11:24 where Christ gives “thanks” for the bread.  “The New Testament does not use the noun eucharistia as a description of the Lord’s Supper.  Its adoption expressed a growing sacramental attitude toward the communion service and nowadays it is almost exclusively employed by liturgical or ecumenical churches.”[13]

The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual, literal, tangible body and blood of our Savior.  Transubstantiation is the Catholic view that describes “the change of the whole substance of bread and wine into the whole substance of the body and blood of Christ while only the accidents (taste, smell, and so on) of bread and wine remain.”[14]  Thus the Catholic Church teaches, “At the Last Supper Our Lord turned bread into His body,” and “He turned wine into His blood.”[15]  This was not a change of “appearance” but a change of “substance”:

When Our Lord said, “This is My body,” the entire substance of the bread was changed into His body; and when He said, “This is My blood,” the entire substance of the wine was changed into His blood. . . . The change of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is called Transubstantiation. . . . Christ gave His priests the power to change bread and wine into His body and blood when He made the apostles priests at the Last Supper by saying to them: “Do this in remembrance of Me.”[16]

The term “transubstantiation” was used by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 to express the belief of Christ’s “real presence” in the Eucharist.  In 1965, Paul VI stated that transubstantiation is the preferred term.[17]

What does the Bible say?  When Jesus gathered with His disciples in the upper room in Jerusalem the night before His death, He was celebrating the Jewish Passover, and in the midst of this feast, Jesus instituted an entirely new memorial.  Our Lord took the unleavened loaf of bread (no yeast was permitted in a Jewish household), gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take, eat; this is My body” (Matthew 26:26).  Consider this with me.  It is clear that He didn’t have his actual, literal, physical body in mind or in His hand, for He was there alive in their midst.  His body was not in two separate places—the body that was speaking and the body that the bread had become.  No, his body was distinguished from the bread in His hands.  The Savior simply must have meant that the bread was to always remind his followers of His body that would be given in sacrifice for their sins.

He then took the Passover cup, gave thanks, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (vv. 27-28).  Again, this could not have been literal blood in the cup, for Jesus’ literal, physical blood was still coursing through His veins.  This had to mean that the disciples were to remember Jesus’ blood sacrifice when they shared the cup on future occasions.

Jesus often used physical objects to illustrate spiritual truths.  He told the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” but He did not refer to the literal Jerusalem temple, but to “the temple of His body” (John 2:19, 21).  On another occasion, the Lord told Nicodemus, “You must be born again,” but He didn’t mean a literal, physical birth, but a spiritual one (John 3:3, 5, 7-12).  Jesus also told the Samaritan woman, “Whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst”—but He didn’t mean a literal, physical water, but a spiritual water that springs up to eternal life (John 4:10, 13-15).  Later on, Jesus said, “I am the door of the sheep,” but He didn’t mean a literal, physical door but a spiritual one that would open to salvation (John 10:7, 9).  He also said, “I am the good shepherd,” but He had no literal, physical sheep but was a spiritual “shepherd” over the souls of people, one who would die for the sheep (John 10:11, 14).  Christ said, “I am the true vine,” but He was not a literal, physical vine with physical leaves and chlorophyll, but He was a spiritual vine to whom we must be attached to receive spiritual nourishment and life (John 15:1-6).

John shows Jesus speaking in spiritual, non-literal terms to make a spiritual point or illustrate a spiritual principle.  He did this in the highly-controversial section in John 6, when Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves” (John 6:53; cf. vv. 51-58).  As in all the other cases we have noted, Jesus here must be speaking in a spiritual and symbolic way and not a literal, physical way.  He says, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst” (v. 35).  Coming to Jesus and believing in Him, especially as the sacrificed Sin-bearer who gave His body and blood for our sins, is likened to “eating” and “drinking” Jesus (cf. vv. 37, 40, 45, 47).

Some writers contend that John 6:53-54 should be understood literally and not metaphorically.  But the context seems to say otherwise.  In verse 40, Jesus says, “This is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.  There is a parallel in verses 40 and 53-54:

Eating and Drinking = Eternal Life

Beholding and Believing = Eternal Life

Consequently, to “eat” Jesus’ flesh and “drink” His blood is to believe in the Lord Jesus.  Ron Rhodes explains:

Just as we must consume or partake of physical food to sustain physical life, so we must spiritually appropriate Christ to have eternal life.  Just as the ancient Jews were dependent on manna (bread) to sustain physical life, so we are dependent on Jesus (the bread of life) for our spiritual life.  Food that is eaten and then digested is assimilated so that it becomes a part of the body.  Likewise, people must spiritually appropriate Christ and become one with Him by faith to receive the gift of eternal life.

The references to flesh and blood in this verse point us to the work of Christ on the cross.  It was there that His flesh was nailed to the cross and His blood was shed to make man’s salvation possible.  By placing faith in the crucified Christ, we appropriate Him and His work of salvation.[18]

Rhodes offers further points:

  1. The reference to body and blood “were intended as graphic metaphors representing His death on the cross.”
  2. “Scripture teaches that drinking blood is forbidden to anyone (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17). The disciples, schooled in the commandments of God, would never have understood Jesus to be instructing them to go directly against the commandments of God.”
  3. “Peter said, ‘I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean’ (Acts 10:14). Peter could not have said this if he thought he had actually ingested the body and blood of Christ (Leviticus 3:17).”
  4. “There is no mention of wine in John 6:52, 53. If this passage were referring to the Eucharist, wine would be mentioned along with the bread.”
  5. Scripture often uses “ingestion language to speak of our relationship with God” (Psalm 34:8; 63:1, 5; Psalm 119:103; 1 Peter 2:2,3; Hebrews 5:14).
  6. “If the bread Jesus held in His hands were actually His body, then He would have been incarnated into two places at the same time—an unreasonable view that contradicts other verses on the nature of the Incarnation (for example, Hebrews 2:14; 10:5).”
  7. “If the elements of the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ in Roman Catholic churches throughout the world every Sunday, this means that the body of Christ is spread all over the planet (and hence would require omnipresence). But nowhere in Scripture is Christ’s human body portrayed as being omnipresent.  Only Christ in His divine nature (as spirit—John 4:24) is omnipresent.”[19]

Very early, some of the so-called “Church Fathers” seemed to believe in some aspect of what has been called the “Real Presence” of Jesus in the communion elements.  But we will not be judged by these human writings but by Jesus Himself

The bread and cup were to vividly remind the disciples that Jesus actually had offered His body and blood for the sins of the world.  The sacrifice of His body (Colossians 1:22) and blood (v. 20) was absolutely essential for our redemption.  The bread and cup could not have been His actual, literal body and blood at this occasion since He was living and breathing right then in their midst.  And neither would the body and blood be changed in substance in the coming years.  Jesus spoke in vivid language of the importance of relating to Him, personally.

One of the profound realities that the doctrine of transubstantiation has often overlooked as to do with Christ’s incarnation (as we mentioned above).  We know that “Christ’s human body is localized in heaven (Revelation 1:13-16).”  But He can be everywhere spiritually (Matthew 28:20).  Do we see a problem with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in this?  They teach that Christ’s body is actually present in the bread and He blood is present in the wine.  Actually, transubstantiation means that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

Howard O. J. Brown says that “in order to be bodily present at thousands of altars, the body of Christ must possess one of the so-called attributes of the majesty of God, namely, omnipresence or ubiquity.”[20]  Millard Erickson also notes: “To believe that Jesus was in two places at once is something of a denial of the incarnation, which limited his physical human nature to one location.”[21]  Transubstantiation, therefore, seems to be a compromise with this important Biblical teaching.

One more aspect of the Eucharist may be mentioned.  Church law states that every faithful Catholic “must receive the sacrament at least once, during Easter season, every year.”[22]  The New Catholic Catechism (1389) specifies:

The Church obliges the faithful “to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days” and prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.  But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.

Thus, a Catholic may take the Eucharist once a year at Easter or as frequently as daily.  “We are obligated to receive Holy Communion during Easter time each year and when in danger of death. . . . Most people could go to Communion daily if they really wanted to, though it might cost a little sacrifice. . . . Daily communion is highly recommended by the Church.”[23]  But who gave the Catholic Church the right to establish the one-time-a-year rule?  Who gave the Church the right to allow daily communion?  Does the New Testament address the frequency of participation?

In the early body of Christ, Christians regularly broke bread (in memory of the Lord).  Acts 2:42 says that the early Christians were “continually devoting” themselves to this.  At Troas, Paul and the believers met on the first day of the week—the Lord’s day—to remember Jesus by breaking bread (Acts 20:7).  In Corinth, Paul gives the impression that the breaking of bread occurred regularly—not yearly and not daily  (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:18, 20, 26, 33, 34).  1 Corinthians 16:1-2 says that the believers were to give of their financial means on “the first day of every week” and evidently this weekly meeting was when they partook of the loaf and cup of the Lord’s memorial meal.  Revelation 1:10 speaks of the “Lord’s day” which in the following years was a common expression for the first day of the week (our Sunday).

This weekly, first day, remembrance continued after the New Testament era.  For example, Justin testifies to the practice (Apology 1, 65).[24]   Historian Everett Ferguson notes, “The Lord’s supper was a constant feature of the Sunday service.  There is no second-century evidence for the celebration of a daily eucharist.”[25]

  1. Communion Under One Kind

We know that the follower of Christ is to obey His instructions regarding partaking of the bread and cup.  What does Scripture say?  Jesus took the unleavened loaf of bread and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me” (1 Corinthians 11:24).  He also took the cup containing the fruit of the grape vine and said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (v. 25).  Paul then says, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (v. 26).  The Christian is called to use the bread and cup to remember the body and blood of Jesus his Savior.  This is elementary.

One of the strange occurrences in history is that the Roman Catholic Church, while emphasizing the ritual of the Eucharist, has plainly violated Christ’s words about partaking of the cup.  Catholic writer Kenneth Ryan explains: “Communion was under the form of both bread and wine down to the twelfth century for public occasions.” However, he says that no one doubted that the faithful Catholic could take only one of the elements and this ceremony would still be considered valid, “so eventually the greater convenience of using only the bread made that practice universal.”[26]

In other words, Catholics, since the 1100s, did not partake of the cup!  Then the Council of Trent (1545-1963) “decreed that Mass was not valid without the priest consuming both species, but that the laity were not to be given the cup, even though a few theologians argued that more grace was received when communicating under both kinds.[27]  Catholics were forbidden to partake of the cup to remember the blood of Christ!  They were forbidden to obey the Lord Himself!  Amazingly, at this time it became unlawful for the Catholic laity to partake of the cup, thereby violating Jesus’ teaching, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition” (Mark 7:9).

There was a reaction to this practice of communion “under one kind.”  “Certain thinkers were falsely insisting that there was a divine precept for the use of both bread and wine, and that the Church was sacrilegious in limiting the laity to one species.”[28]  Therefore, not all Catholics could accept the Church ruling that the laity were only permitted to take the bread.  Finally, in our day, this restrictition has been changed and about half of Catholics do partake of the cup while the other half of the people abstain.[29]

How did the Catholic Church justify their refusal to offer the cup to the laity when they came to the Mass for the communion?  This is how one Catholic Source explains this omission:

The question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers — the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it.[30]

In view of the plain teaching of Scripture, we must reject Catholicism’s attempt to justify only offering bread to the laity.  Jesus gave the cup to all of the apostles present, saying, “Drink from it, all of you” (Matthew 26:27).  Luke says that the Lord said, “Take this and share it among yourselves” (Luke 22:17).  Did all of the apostles drink of it?  “He gave it to them, and they all drank from it” (Mark 14:23).  Paul refers to the same event and concludes, “As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26).  They were not only to eat of the loaf of bread but were also to partake of the cup of the fruit of the vine. In fact, the apostle asks, “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16a).  It is obvious that the believers not only broke the bread and ate it, but they also shared in the cup and drank from it.  The Catholic refusal to give the cup to the members for many centuries is without justification.

One further point may be made.  Paul is quite clear that there is significance to the bread.  Not only is it to be unleavened (without yeast), but evidently it is to be a single loaf of bread.  Paul writes, “Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).  The term “bread” here is from the Greek artos, meaning “a small loaf or cake.”[31]  When believers break bread from a single loaf of unleavened bread, they signify that “we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread [loaf]” (1 Corinthians 11:16).  Does the Roman Catholic Church partake of one loaf—or multiple wafers?[32]

Please check all of the articles in this series on the Catholic Church:

Part 1a

Part 1b

Part 1c

Part 2a

Part 2b

Part 2c

Part 3a

Part 3b

Part 3c

Part 4a

Part 4b

Part 4c

 

 

[1] Essential, p. 154.

[2] Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms.

[3] Beginning Apologetics I, p. 38.

[4] Obviously, separated or divorced people should remain celibate or return to their spouse (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

[5] W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary.

[6] Tony Coffey, Once a Catholic, p. 109.

[7] Essential, p. 208.

[8] The Documents of Vatican II, quoted by Coffey, p. 78.

[9] The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, Revised, p. 162.

[10] Quoted by Ron Rhodes, Reasoning, p. 186.

[11] Once a Catholic, p. 85.

[12] Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, p. 47.

[13] Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms, p. 140,  See also  Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, pp. 93-94: “The designation eucharist was already applied in the second century not simply to the prayer but also to the act as a whole and to the elements over which the thanks were said.  Later Irenaeus will call the service a ‘thank offering.’ . . . The Lord’s supper was the church’s great moment of thanksgiving.”

[14] Essential, p. 253.

[15] Chacon and Burnham, Beginning Apologetics I, p. 35.

[16] The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, pp. 164-166.

[17] Reynolds R. Ekstrom, The New Concise Catholic Dictionary, p. 95.

[18] Reasoning, p. 195.

[19] Reasoning, pp. 196, 198, 201.

[20] Quoted by Rhodes, Reasoning, p. 185.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ekstrom, The New Concise Catholic Dictionary, p. 96.

[23] The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, Revised, pp. 180-181.

[24] Cited by Ferguson, Early Christians Speak, Third Edition, p. 92.

[25] Early Christians Speak, p. 94.

[26] Catholic Questions, Catholic Answers, pp. 50-51.

[27] Ibid., p. 51.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid., p. 52.

[30] newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm.

[31] W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary. See also the NASB marginal note.  Vine goes on to say that artos refers to “the loaf at the Lord’s Supper.”

[32] Apparently the Catholic practice is to use unleavened wheat bread, which is entirely acceptable as far as the substance is concerned (Albert J. Nevins, Catholicism The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 103).

Comments are closed.