Hi Angela,
For the purposes of time I will focus on the first Chronicle that being the Eucharist. The following logic would apply to the other 4 Chronicles as well.
This is a perfect example of why we must balance our education to hear from both sides. When I was an anti-Catholic all I heard was what my neighbor decreed as truth based on his personal interpretation of scripture and all I read was his books and sites that aligned with his interpretation. And like this article they are all very convincing. The problem is that they already have the answer "The Catholic Church is to be hated" so their explanations only show those things that align with their beliefs. Here are a few things this offer refused to include in his article either by ignorance or deception. Either way is disgraceful because you are misleading people.
In the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. the Eucharist is called out as "the most necessary viaticum" and "the body of Christ. Viaticum is defined as the Eucharist as give to those near death. Then the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. describes the "unbloody worship...partaking of the real flesh of the Word". This was the universal belief of the Church from its very beginning. The Church never defined how this occurs that the bread and wine changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord, just that it happened. Over time and much prayer and discernment Jesus' Church defined how it happens....not that it does happen which was believed 1200 years earlier.
If this writer is going to use the council of Trent in his piece why wouldn't he also use the words of earlier councils? I can't be sure, but I would bet so that he can deceive people into thinking the concept of the Eucharist was invented at the council of Trent. Intellectually lazy at the minimum, deceptive and evil at the worst.
If you read my faith journey post the best advice I can give by far is to balance your research. Don't just focus on Catholic hating sites. Go visit Catholic sites as well. Keep an open mind and let the Holy Spirit guide you into answering the question, "would my beliefs today be called Christian 'yesterday' and at all times"? If not then ask yourself, "why is that?"
-Ernie-
-Ernie-
We must have cross posted, so I am glad you had a look at one of these. I’m not sure what more, other than checking the Bible against Catholic doctrine and documents one can do.
First, I consider the early church to be the church up till approximately the end of the first century BC, depending upon when you peg Revelation and John’s epistles as being written. The early church were the people in DIRECT contact with the living Jesus. That is why we can accept the books these people wrote as canon. Because they knew Jesus! Of course, Paul knew him after he was risen, but apparently Jesus taught him much after his conversion, which is why a good portion of the NT was written by him. For me, Paul is the founder of the church. “This rock” always cited by Catholics, is a bit different in Greek. Something to do with petros, vs petra.
”The New Testament was originally written in the Greek, from which the Latin, English, and other versions were translated. If you study the Greek text you will find that the word
Peter and the word
Rock on which Christ was to build His church are two separate and distinct words, each having a different meaning. The word
Peter in Greek is
petros, which means "a piece of rock; a stone; a single stone; movable, insecure, shifting, or roll*ing." The word
rock is petra, which means "a rock; a cliff; a projecting rock; mother rock; huge mass; solid formation; fixed; immovable; enduring."
The word
petros for Peter in the Greek is in the masculine gender and the word
petra for the rock is in the feminine gender.
Petros and
petra are two distinct words in the Greek.
Petros is a shifting, rolling, or insecure stone, while
petra is a solid, immov*able rock. In the English language the gender is not specified by the article. We say
the fork,
the spoon, and
the knife. The three words have the same article. In the Greek, as in many of the modern languages, each noun and corresponding article is in the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender. In many cases it is an arbitrary arrangement, regardless of sex.
The article in Greek is important. If one noun is in the masculine it must have a masculine article, and if it is in the feminine it must have a feminine article. The text under consideration in the Greek shows that
petros is in the masculine, and
petra in the feminine, proving that they are two distinct words; and each one has a different meaning. Now the question is, on which of the two, petros or petra, did Christ establish His church? Was it on petros, a movable stone, or petra, an immovable rock?
Let us quote the text again: "I say also unto thee [to Peter], That thou art Peter [petros, masculine gender], and upon this Rock [petra, feminine gender] I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The text indicates clearly that the church of Christ is built on petra and not on Petros.
Now, who is this petra or rock on which Christ built His true church? Let the Holy Bible again give the answer. If the Bible gives the answer, we make no mistake in accepting it because the definition is authentic. "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [petra, in the Greek] was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4). Here we have evidence that petra refers to Christ, and not to Peter, petros. Again we quote: "Jesus Christ Himself being the chief Cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20) "He is the Rock, His work is perfect" (Deuteronomy 32:4; 2 Samuel 22:2-3) (Douay, 2 Kings 22:2-3).
If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not prevail against him. But the fact is that he was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn't he deny his Lord? This was after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome. Jesus told Peter on one occasion: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matthew 16:23). Peter himself gives the answer as to who the Rock is. He says Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Again, speaking of Christ, he says: "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders" (Acts 4:10-11); so Christ, the Son of God, must be the rock on which God built His church.
If Jesus would have built His church on Peter, petros, He would have said: "Thou art Petros, and upon this Petros [or upon it] I will build My church," but such is not the case. He plainly says: "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build My church.” Paul tells us that the petra is Christ. He also says, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Peter is never designated by petra. Thus, Peter and Paul agree that Christ is the Rock; but the pope claims the title for himself. Which testimony should we accept? "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).”
Is The Church Built on