PART ONE:
Acknowledging the Errors and Misconceptions
INTRODUCTION:
The Root of Generating
Errors about the Catholic Church:
The Protestant Perspective/Presumptions Concerning the Catholic Church
One of the very first essential issues necessary for discovering the “Original Church
Some of these misconceptions are historical errors are based on a Protestant theological perspective, and others are founded upon a re-interpretation of certain Biblical passages according to the Protestant theological perspective (i.e., “eisegesis”). This “re-interpretation” of the Scriptures, throwing out much of the historical context and understanding of passages, has caused much division within the whole of the Christian Church. As illustrated in the Introduction to Part Two, division in the Church is recognized as a serious sin and scandal.
The term “Protestant” comes from the meaning of one who is in “protest” against the established Church. In other words, the very nature of being a Protestant, and subsequently Evangelical, is to be in a state of conflict or reaction against the traditional leadership and understanding and practice of the Christian faith. By this, Protestant theology has become in part an “anti-Catholic reactionary theology”.
After coming to a personal interpretation and view of the writings of Saint Paul Saint Paul
Also, it has been commented upon that it appears that Luther’s foundational error, and thus the subsequent view of Protestants who hold to “Faith Alone”, may have came by way of equating Saint Paul’s use of the term “works” to mean “goods works” or “all works”, when in fact there is a distinction often missed by those who read later parts of Romans as really referring to “works of the Law”. When Saint Paul is referring to “works” in Romans 11 he is still referring to an earlier statement that says, “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified” (Romans 3:20). These “works of the Law” by which “no flesh will be justified” are the Jewish ritual and ceremonial works of the Mosaic Law. Thus, Saint Paul
Another key passage is Ephesians 2:8-9, where Saint Paul Saint Paul
As well, the implication behind this Lutheran teaching of “Faith Alone”, which was revealed in his preaching, was that one didn’t necessarily need to do good works to be saved (although Luther approved that one should do good works).
It was at the Diet of Worms (pronounce dee-et of Vorms) that Luther was formally called to recant of his position. He took a day to consider it and eventually refused. The result could be seen as his next realignment away from The Church by an ultimate attempt to justify his personal interpretation of Scripture in opposition to the authority of The Church. Luther’s recorded response was “Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason ... I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honourable to act against conscience.”[1] This testimony of Scripture and conscience would come to be known as “sola scriptura” or “scripture alone” concerning the authority of the Christian faith. The testimony of reason against his doctrine would come over time as he witnessed a greater laxity among the German peasantry. Even still, the two central slogans of the Protestant Revolt became that of “Sola Fide!” by “Sola Scriptura!” In fact, there were three other “sola” or “alone” slogans that arose during the Revolt. “Sola Gratia” or “Grace Alone”, feed into the “Faith Alone” idea. Then there were those of “Solus Christus” (“Christ Alone”) and “Soli Deo Gloria” (“Glory to God Alone”), all seemingly appropriate catchphrases, yet explained in a way to undermine the God-given authority of The Church to clarify what is orthodox.
By going into hiding hereafter his excommunication, and with the new invention of the printing press, Luther’s new ideas and anti-Catholic propaganda spread like wildfire throughout Germany and then Europe . Of course, the effects of this Revolt, or “Reformation” as the Protestants preferred to call it due to it less antagonistic tone, eventually spread to the “New World ”, a land not easily governed at such a distance by Catholic popes or Protestant kings.
CHAPTER ONE:
Historical Errors about the Catholic Church
When the Catholic Church Began
Historical errors concerning the Catholic Church’s origins are not so much a result of the Protestant Revolt as they are of poor scholarship. On the other hand, it could be said that the Protestant Revolt has prompted poor scholarship as a way to undermine The Church. This is not to say that poor scholarship was a principle of the Revolt, even though Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are clear examples of this as we will see. Rather, because the Protestant Revolt has situated some Christ’s followers against Christ’s Church, it has in turn resulted in some of them doing what they can to undermine The Church if even by marring the facts a little.
At the root of the problem of historical errors is the tendency to “re-interpret” Church history. The Catholic Church teaches that The Church is the final authority concerning the Christian Faith and not someone’s personal conscience that could be in error. This doctrine is based on an ecclesiology – the theology of what The Church is – with a view of the messengers of the Gospel as having special functions (e.g., the hierarchy). Clearly, if this were the case concerning the authority of the Christian Faith, this would stop the Protestantism in its tracks as its leaders could no longer prefer their own “interpretations” over authoritative Church teaching. What would prove the Church fundamentally wrong on this point? To attempt to prove that Jesus Christ didn’t build the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church was shown to have started sometime after Jesus and the Twelve Apostles then it could be argued that this Church never received any final authority from them.
The “Constantine Started the Catholic Church” misconception is one of the most common errors. This is founded upon the understanding that the Catholic Church, fundamentally residing in the authority of the papacy, started hundreds of years later than it actually had. In fact, there are many other dates and names thrown around as to who was supposedly the first pope.
Contrary to the notion that the first pope was someone other than the Apostle Peter, there is real evidence in the historical connectedness of the office of the popes with that of Peter. The main evidence from Scripture is his special appointment by Jesus to be the vicar and chief shepherd of the whole Church which was displayed in the Council of Jerusalem where Peter gave the definitive declaration. Ever since the Council of Jerusalem it has been the same historical pattern of holding Church Councils with the pope or his representative present to classify the meeting as “ecumenical”, or binding on the whole Church. There will be more on this point in throughout this book. As well, the popes find their special yet practical role in Saint Paul
Connecting the New Testament Scriptures to actual historical people reveals that it was in the first century with the very Apostles and their disciples’ generation that the “catholic” or “universal” church began to take form and grow, as previously pointed out. Even Protestant scholars recognize this “later start date” of the Catholic Church error is a miscalculation,[2] as they are also familiar with the ancient writings of the Apostolic Fathers,[3] like Ignatius of Antioch, who described The Church in this manner:
Apart from the bishop, let no one perform any of the functions that pertain to the Church. Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.[4]
Several of these ancient Christian writers and leaders of the Church provide first century allusions to doctrines still held on to by only the Catholic Church, such as the Eucharist being true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and the hierarchical structure and the centrality of bishops in governance. The significance of their writings, as having been disciples of the Apostles, is clearly recognizable. Their works give clearer context and meaning to their teachers’ writing (the New Testament). The problem for the common Protestant layman or laywoman who uses the “Scripture Alone”, is that they never become familiar with the fact that there are other historical documents written around the same time as the Apostles or not long after. Such notable examples are The Didache, the Letter of Barnabas, the Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, and the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch on the way to his martyrdom in Rome
The notion that essentially claims that “the Catholic Church started when Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire and mixed paganism with it” is very convincing for two major reasons. One, since most people who throw this error around are non-Catholic, it seems plausible since Catholicism is already foreign and odd to their perceptions of what Christianity is “supposed to look like”. Another reason this error is convincing is because it is powered by what is known as a “half truth”. Yes, Constantine did in a way “legalize” Christianity, or more accurately he “allowed” it to be practiced by decreeing religious liberty to “Christians and non-Christians alike”,[5] as historian and Anglican convert to Catholicism, H.C. Crocker III points out, through the emperor’s famous Edict of Milan. Certainly, Christianity came to be the new emperor’s religion of preference as he perceived its God to have won him the Roman Empire . Yet, this is not when the Catholic Church started as actual evidence reveals. As well, just because the title “pope” was used later in time doesn’t undermine the fact that the “office” wasn’t already in function.
The solution of syncretism, or the blending of cultural and religious ideas, is also a culprit behind the perpetuation of “later start date” errors for those who want to discredit Catholicism and why many believe that the Catholic Church began centuries later. To syncretists, “Catholicism” is a blending of Christianity and such pagan cults as that of Sol Invictus and Isis – worship of the sun god and the mother god. Anti-Catholic propagandists will site similarities between Catholic practice and pagan cults, but as intellectuals know, similarities do not equal origins. In fact, in its historical context the Christian religion was seen by others as something of a threat due to its abnormally high and unwavering moral code (what now even most secularists would consider right behavior, such as prohibitions on ruler worship or sex cults). As well, there were rumors of Christians practicing cannibalism due to their beliefs regarding the Eucharist as truly being the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Crocker has articulated this error of perception and points out the historical contrary.
It is often said that early Christianity was merely another Eastern mystery religion full of adoptions from other cults, ranging from the ideas of an afterlife adapted from ancient Egypt to the ceremonies of the Mass being a variation of the secret ceremonies of Mithraism, and innumerable other presumed parallels and intersections. Most religions have commonalities–whether it is using candles and incense, or employing priests, or advising prayer–but what struck every pagan observer about Christianity was how different it was, and how different its believers were. It is for this very reason that it could be isolated and persecuted. It also gave birth to Tertullian’s famous witticism about Christianity: “God’s son died: it is believable precisely because it is absurd. He was buried and rose again: it is certain because it is impossible.”[6]
Not only do Protestants have the high tendency to misrepresent the Catholic Church, but so do history media like the History Channel and National Geographic. Why is this? Concerning approaching the various histories of Christianity, the great Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc pointed out most often authors “missed the very stuff with which they were dealing, because they proceeded from authors who had no intimacy with the Catholic Church: who did not know ‘what it was all about.’”[7] In other words, those outside the Church usually miss the point of issues precisely because they are outside the Church. Instead, coming from non-Catholics, common historical misconceptions and misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine and practice continue to be perpetuated even in respected media which we assume to be scholarly. Unfortunately, every historian has his biases and preconceived notions. The best source, then, for any particular subject comes from those who “intimate” with the subject. Then again, in this respect, one also has to be aware of hagiography, or the tendency of some to purify the story.
The “Great Apostasy” Allegation and the “Restoration Plea”
The so-called “Great Apostasy” is the second most common historical error concerning the Catholic Church. The essential view is that after the death of the last Apostle, Saint John
Concerning the Second Coming, Saint Paul had spoke that “the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4). The traditional understanding was a reference to the Roman emperors, not the Roman church, Paul calling to mind for the Thessalonians the past instance when Antiochus IV asserted himself as a “god” and attempted to set up in the Jerusalem
In the historical context of Scriptures that give admonishment or warning we find the immediate interpretation, referring to the present enemy of God and His people, both in the Old and New Testament writings, and then its general or prophetic application to all those who behave in the manner of those of the immediate interpretation. This is especially the case with apocalyptic literature, which is heavily loaded with symbolic imagery.
However, it becomes a temptation to abuse such Scriptures by using them as a weapon in one’s own time against certain people or events as though they were a “fulfillment”. Such was the case with Hal Lindsey’s famous book of the 1970s, The Late, Great Planet Earth, in which he drew upon current events as thought to be fulfillments of the books like Daniel and Revelation. For example, he portrays fighter helicopters as the possible locusts of Revelation, chapter 9, whereas historical biblical scholars recognize such imagery as symbolic representations of “the end”, calling to the mind of the reader the ten plagues of Egypt
To Timothy, Saint Paul
“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.”
1 Timothy 4:1-3
Less than fifteen hundred years after these writings of Saint Paul
We recognize that the apostasy was falsely directed at the papacy because the Paul speaks of it as happening in “later times” when some will “fall away” after the rise of a “man of lawlessness”. The papacy is not a “later times” event by one “man”, but an ancient office of 265 to date. Also, this office has been respected and revered as teaching the apostolic faith since the beginning by the bishop disciples of the Apostles. The true irony was this “end-times apostasy” was now being aimed against the very office that Christ promised the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against, and by a man who initiated a movement away from The Church.
Having been trained at, and a graduate of the Sunset School of Preaching, Bruce Sullivan was a Church of Christ preacher for over nine years, vigorously preaching what he was taught: that the early Church underwent a “Great Apostasy” from the “true” Gospel of Jesus Christ, and therefore advanced what is called the “Restoration Plea” – that Christians return to the Biblical Gospel. However, upon reading Karl Keating’s famous Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Sullivan came to discover that the Catholic Faith does in fact have strong Scriptural basis. After discussing his conversion to the Catholic Church, in chapter 10 of his book Christ In His Fullness, Sullivan calls attention to The Problems with a Restorationist Ecclesiology. First of all, he notes that to some degree all non-Catholic Christians are, to some degree, restorationists.
“The Churches of Christ are not the only ‘restorationists’ that have ever appeared on the religious landscape. The Puritans were restorationists, as were many Baptist denominations in their early days. In addition, our modern day has seen a proliferation of sects espousing many variations of restorationism. It could be said that virtually all non-Catholic traditions are ‘restorationists’ in the sense that they all generally focus on one particular period in history as the Church’s ‘golden age’ to which we must return. Protestants tend to focus on the first century, Anglicans on the first four centuries, and Eastern Orthodox on the first eight centuries. Many of the proliferating modern independent Mega-churches insist that they are merely returning to the pristine Church of the second chapter of Acts. For all practical purposes, however, they are all claiming to ‘restore’ the pure Gospel of the period to which they appeal.”[8]
So what is the underlying commonality or problem that makes all of such groups desire restoration yet find themselves still at odds with one another? The problem is the idea that “Scripture Alone” as the sole authority of faith, without any final interpretive authority within or between their denominations. Even though it is claimed that the “Scripture Alone” is to be the guiding “authority”, it technically falls back on the “reader of Scripture” who becomes the real “authority” – the “private authority” – as the Scriptures require an interpretation to understand them. Thus it is here, upon the reading of Scripture without any guiding authority above the reader’s own education and conscience that we get multiple interpretations of Scripture and multiple interpretations of what “The Church” is supposed to look like and do in the world.
Sullivan, then, goes on to point out the stark fact that the Scriptures themselves, especially the New Testament, do not point to an authoritative book, but to an authoritative Church founded by Christ Himself. Yes, the Scriptures do validate their own authority, but they do not define themselves. Thus, we have the historical debates of the Jews to determine the Hebrew canon, and the debates among the early Christians to determine the New Testament canon. Furthermore, Sullivan points out that not only do the Scriptures referred to an authoritative Church, they also speak of It as indestructible, the source of truth, and the manifestation of God’s wisdom and Christ’s glory. For Sullivan notes,
“Our Lord declared to His apostles that He would build His Church and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). The apostle Paul refers to this same Church as being ‘the pillar and bulwark of truth’ (1 Timothy 3:15), the instrument by which God has chosen to make known His wisdom (Ephesians 3:10), and in which He will be glorified “to all generations” (Ephesians 3:12). Our Savior considered the unity of this Church, His Church, to be a vital testimony to the authenticity of His own mission (John 17:20-21).”[9]
In his large work on Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe, Mormon convert Isaiah Bennett critiques Mormon life and doctrine from a traditional Christian perspective – a Catholic perspective. First, he approaches the very critique of Mormonism as a delicate issue, since Mormons set themselves up as unable to be critiqued. They typically view any form of critique or criticism as “persecution” or as “contention”, and those who critique or criticize their religion (i.e., being contentious, challenging, argumentative, or contrary) are automatically “of the devil”, as it says in their new scriptures.[10]
This form of worldview – seeing everyone else who may object as of the devil – is a very convenient tool of a religious leader, namely Joseph Smith who founded Mormonism, to isolate a large group of people from the rest of the thinking world so as to hold them to his doctrines. Say, for example, a man may begin to question the foundations of the LDS church and its founder, yet, because of how he was trained to view the world and the “restoration” of his church through Joseph Smith, he would also begin to doubt himself and conclude that the devil is trying to influence him. Otherwise, if he were to share his doubts with his fellow Mormon, this brother would likely lead him to the same conclusion so as to rein him in. This reality of stifling valid questioning is a very subtle form of psychological manipulation, both interiorly through one’s own fear of being deceived, and exteriorly through others fostering this fear.
Granted, the possibility of being deceived is a reality, but as Bennett goes on to point out, as did Sullivan, the Scriptures speak of Christ establishing an authoritative and perpetual Church so that all generations would have a protective source to the doctrines of Christ and not have to worry about being deceived. Christ founded the office of the Twelve Apostles for this reason, so that the Apostle John could write, “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). What this meant for those who remained with the Apostles up to their deaths, namely their disciples who had been ordained as bishops, was the handing on of the Apostolic Tradition, the Sacred Tradition, otherwise referred to as the Deposit of Faith. Those who would abandoned the Sacred Tradition various reasons, whether for fear of the terrible persecutions or by the deceptions of false teachers, were viewed as “apostates”. Thus there was the eagerness in the Early Church
Accusing the Catholic Church as being the source of the “Great Apostasy” has had the same psychological effect as does accusing everyone who may disagree as being influenced by the devil. It has caused many to not only automatic consider the historical Church as off base, but even an evil entity, and therefore to never consider it as a possible option for hearing the Gospel versus trying to figure out for oneself which denomination is “the closest to the truth”.
As noted, an “apostasy” is a “falling away”. Catholics apologists tend not verbalize it as such, not wanting to offend their Protestant brethren, yet in various ways they hint to the account of the Protestant Reformation – the Protestant Revolt – as an apostasy from the Catholic Church. However, Protestants are not viewed by Catholics as being in “total apostasy”, such as the charge that Mormonism portrays toward the Catholic Church. Catholic recognize that most Protestant denominations have held onto several key Catholic doctrines like the importance of Scripture, the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Original Sin, and various others according to which denomination you examine. Bennett calls attention, on the other hand, to the manner by which Mormons assess the Catholic Church’s history and doctrines, not by objective examination, but rather by their own presumption of “total apostasy”. He points out how “The Mormon church first concludes that the Catholic Church can’t be the true faith and then rummages through its two-thousand-year history to find ‘corroborating evidence.’”[11] Bennett goes on to cite many of the common Mormon criticisms of Catholic history and disputed doctrines as though evidence of an alleged “total apostasy” while also, like Sullivan, pointing out the Scriptural contradictions that speak of an authoritative and incorruptible Church. Furthermore, Bennett points out that Mormonism contradicts its own teachings in the strange idea that the Apostle John, not to mention three “Nephites”[12], never died but was given the gift of immortality from Jesus. If the Apostle John was supposed to “prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people” (Doctrine and Covenants 3:7), as it says in Mormon scripture, then why is there no mention of him before prophesying to any nation or people before the time of Joseph Smith? The typical Christian answer is that Smith made it all up. Following the lead of the Protestants before him, the Catholic Church became the archenemy so as to make him the hero, the “apostasy” became his reason to become someone, and he borrowed the current idea of the time for a need of “restoration” as his own answer to the uncontrollable Protestant problem of denominationalism.
The Catholic Church Supposedly Suppressed the Scriptures
The Scriptures play a great role not only in the lives of Protestants, but also in the Catholic Church as well. The Bible has been read from daily for the last two thousand years by the Catholic Church’s priests and monks during Mass, prayer, and study. However, some Protestants point out that historically “the Bible was banned from being read by the Catholic Church”. This is what is known as a “half truth” used to undermine the Church. Looking to the context of history when this happened we find that because there were many bad translations and unauthorized versions being marketed, the Church had to step in and say “Hold it for just a minute!” Francis J. Ripley pointed out that,
At one time Bible translations were falsified in the interest of certain heresies. Tyndale, for example, always substituted the word “congregation” for “Church”; and “ordinance” for “tradition”, because of the Catholic connotation attached to these words. He also translated “Little children, keep yourselves from images”, instead of using the more accurate rendering “idols.”[13]
Using a generic term like “congregation” can cause individuals to falsely view local churches as having more autonomous authority than they have been given. For example, when Christ said “if your brother sins…tell it to the church”, (Matthew 18:17) this historically speaks to the unitive authority of the Church in general, whereas “tell it to the congregation” can make a reader think more immediately and individualistically, thus losing the “big picture” of what the Church is. Likewise, using a term “ordinance” can make a reader think in more temporary terms of orders or regulations, whereas “tradition” is more solid as a longstanding and vital part of the faith. When Saint Paul says “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught”, (2 Thessalonians 2:15 NASB) this statement speaks to the authority of the teachings and practices he gave to them, whereas “stand firm and hold to the ordinances which you were taught” can give an undue authority to a new ordinance that the reader may not realize has no place in the longstanding tradition of the Christian faith. Here also, we find modern Protestant translations mistranslating “tradition” for “teaching” (e.g., the NIV and NLT).
After the Church began authorizing translations of the Old Testament and authentic versions of the New Testament the Catholic Church was able to lift the ban. The intention was to protect the naĂŻve and those who lacked a more scholarly background from falling into the sin of heresy. So it was necessary to ban the Bible, especially after the invention of the printing press which happened right before the Protestant Reformation. Now, the Catholic Church promotes the reading of the Bible for Catholics and even promises them spiritual benefits. Besides, how could the Church not promote the reading of Scripture, considering the most famous quote from Saint Jerome, a Catholic hermit who proclaimed that “to be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ”, and the fact that the Mass is saturated with Scriptural readings and applications? As a matter of fact, converts often point out that more Scripture is read during a Catholic Mass than at any Protestant Service. For in the Mass the prayers and hymns are based on passages or themes of Scripture. Also, there is a reading from the Old Testament, then a Psalm is sung, then there is a reading from a letter of the Apostles, and finally there is a reading from the gospels. On the other hand, some of the Protestant services also follow the same liturgical reading format as the Catholic Church, yet this is simply an imitation of the long held Catholic tradition of reading Scripture in a way in which ties the Old and New Testament together as prophetic utterance, moral encouragement, and fulfillment in Christ.
The Catholic Church Supposedly Promoted Prostitution and Killing
Here is an example of history media misrepresenting the Catholic Church, thus fostering misconceptions. A family member had once asked me, “Did you know that the Catholic Church had at one time legalized prostitution?” Apparently this was a “fact” that he had learned from the program “The History of Sex” on the History Channel. He believed it to be a fact, as I’m sure every non-Catholic and maybe even some less educated Catholics watching the program did, simply because the History Channel said so. Again, we expect scholarly research and historical facts from them, don’t we? I don’t know the historical source of reference for the claim within the program, and one may not have even been given as the History Channel programs often make unsupported conjectures. Yet, I can guarantee that “the Catholic Church” has never legalized prostitution. The true fact may be that a scandalous bishop may have at one time “allowed it” to go on in his diocese, but the point is individual bishops, just like individual Catholics, do not equate with “the Catholic Church”.
The non-scholarly problem that plagues so many non-Catholics is in perceiving the teachings or allowances of individuals or even a few with that of the entire entity. When I hear statements such as, “The Catholic Church once taught such and such” I want to know from which Church Council document or pope’s encyclical letter it came. Only that which the official teaching Magisterium of the Church writes up in official declaration is authentically what “the Catholic Church teaches”. Ultimately then, we see that even non-scholarly “educational” programming can spread misrepresentation and misconception thereby undermining the religious authority of the Catholic Church in the minds of those who fall victim to them.
When speaking of Church History it would be negligent not to address the “murdering, raping and pillaging” of the Crusades as though the efforts of a religious institution wielding undue power, or the “persecution of ‘heretics’” of the Inquisitions as though the self-exposing deeds of an intolerant religion. Both the Crusades and the Inquisitions are viewed as negatively historical Catholic occurrences thought to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church. Due to the bad examples of some of the Catholic Church’s adherents, those with anti-Catholic resentment are sure to retell these stories in a negative perspective. Consider modern news media that report primarily “bad news”. People criticize the media all the time for this. Even still, in the same manner some people enjoy telling of the “dark side” of certain events of Church history. Often the reporters never even provide or seek out the motives behind certain episodes, and if we are provided with any insight it is often speculative or conjecture.
The principle motive behind the Crusades, as stated by the Church who initiated them, was to be “expeditions undertaken, in fulfillment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.”[14] In other words, the Crusades were an effort to free Israel
Killing is not “murder” if it is done either in “self-defense” or in the “defense of others”, such as family, that may be helpless: this is a moral truth. This was not a “preemptive strike”, as the Muslims had been already present terrorizing Palestine
“Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principal of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow”[15]
The Church quotes Saint Thomas Aquinas’ qualification between “more than necessary violence” as “unlawful” with “force with moderation” being “lawful”. As well, the Church also makes clear the right and duty of the…
“…one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who hold legitimate authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.”[16]
Even greater than self- and civil-defense, as in the case of and single aggressor, is the defense of a nation or nations, as in the case of a more organized threat. War is always the last resort “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”[17] However, if war is the only option, the Church teaches that there are “strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force…” which “…require rigorous consideration…”, such as:
“- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.”[18]
The fighting off of the brutal and relentless warlord Saracen Turks, then, was a just war as it met the conditions for the Crusades. The Crusades were not called for a spread of religion, as the Christianity was already present in the East. Neither was the Crusades called for the sole acquisition of goods or preservation of trades routes between the East and the West. Rather, as Church draws attention to, the Crusades were defensives against the Turks who hated the Christian religion and were bent on domination. In a period when the Church played a greater role in politics and held a more existing responsibility over the safety of peoples and property it was the Church’s judgment, under pope Urban II (1042–1099), to call the first Crusade (1096–1099). Even though they were in schism from Rome the emperors of Constantinople pleaded for the assistance of the popes. Pope Gregory VII hesitated, but Urban II heeded the call, not just because of the pleas, but for more involved reasons. Concerning the calling of the First Crusade, Urban II’s contemporaries reveal that,
“On beholding the enormous injury that all, clergy or people, brought upon the Christian Faith . . . at the news that the Rumanian provinces had been taken from the Christians by the Turks, moved with compassion and impelled by the love of God, he crossed the mountains and descended into Gaul” (Foucher de Chartres, I, in "Histoire des Crois.", III, 321).[19]
Any misbehavior or evils perpetrated by individual or even conspiring clans of crusaders is of no consequence on the reputation of the Church, but rather, are matters of private decision and will receive divine judgment accordingly. Those who “plundered as they went along and murdered the Jews in the German cities”[20] failed their vow to the Church. It cannot be logically suggested that the Crusades in some way promoted such evils as we know that such behavior was not characteristic of every crusader. The evil of individuals’ hearts as well as their temptations, which directly opposes the preaching of the Church, was the cause of any private sins during the Crusades.
“What of the torturous Inquisitions sanctioned by several popes? Certainly the Inquisitions are a stain on the reputation of the Church and a sign of its intolerance of others.” There are several problems with these common notions of the Inquisition and social order. One problem is the perpetuated exaggeration, even though well-exposed, of the tortures and deaths inflicted by this Catholic process of weeding out religious error. Another problem is the assumption that torture and death were the Church’s answers to heresy, when in fact the majority of such “penalties” were condemned but still dealt out by extremist secular heads. Many kings and governors, although being religious men, understood heresy to be the same as treason which aided in the breakdown of civil unity.
As well, the modern concept of “intolerance” is greatly misunderstood when the agenda for “tolerance”, though often for good, is at times flaunted about as always good, even pertaining to moral decision making. This agenda for tolerance is usually promoted under the banner of Liberalism. In practical consideration of such an agenda many people intuitively know that moral tolerance is flawed according to the logical end of the argument, as it eventually allows evils through the processes of desensitization leading to indifferentism. This is not a Conservative exaggeration but a recognizably historical movement of religious and social regression. Then again, it is understandable that such an agenda would arise, not as progress from religion but as a reaction against religion since the Protestant Revolt and the Renaissance “Enlightenment”. The Revolt had expelled religious authority while the “Enlightenment” had expelled Divine Revelation for some. The Protestant Revolt was a religiously liberal movement as it unwittingly liberated its followers from authoritative religious truth in trade for the uncertainty of individualistic interpretation of truth. The “Enlightenment” was a secularly liberal movement as it liberated its followers from divine inspiration of faith in trade for the exaltation of human reason (“Rationalism”). Certainly, humanity is great, but God is greater. Yet these two movements have placed humans as the center of all things, whether for so-called “interpretations” of who God is, or for having the best answers to our own questions. Of course, these two forms of liberation are intimately related to one another and so accordingly the “Enlightenment” would follow the Protestant Revolt, and so today’s people have had the influence of these philosophies woven into modern ideology for several hundred years.
Speaking of the institution of the Inquisition, then, Joseph Blötzer, poignantly points out why today’s people have trouble appreciating it.
“Moderns experience difficulty in understanding this institution, because they have, to no small extent, lost sight of two facts. On the one hand they have ceased to grasp religious belief as something objective, as the gift of God, and therefore outside the realm of free private judgment; on the other they no longer see in the Church a society perfect and sovereign, based substantially on a pure and authentic Revelation, whose first most important duty must naturally be to retain unsullied this original deposit of faith. Before the religious revolution of the sixteenth century these views were still common to all Christians; that orthodoxy should be maintained at any cost seemed self-evident.”[21]
Recall that the Christian religion, as mediated through the Catholic Church, was the new bond of religion and politics from the fourth to the sixteenth centuries. As the concept of separation of religion and government (or “Church and State”) had never been known before,[22] through the Inquisition, like a Supreme Court, The Church recognized Her duty according to Her calling to continue to “make disciples of all nations”. Thus, when individuals were accused of error, an especially important matter for those who were influential over the minds of the less educated, in Christian states (or nations) The Church set in place judges – the “inquisitors”.
Neither The Church nor Her historians deny that there were many instances of torture on the rack and death at the stake surrounding the Inquisition, but again these sentences were not imposed by The Church but condemned by Her. Yet, because we still have recent Christian “histories” in our libraries and on our bookshelves that have been strongly influenced by the naturally anti-Catholic sentiments of Protestantism[23] and Rationalism,[24] we find historians like Paul Johnson making the slanderous conjecture that his own Church instituted the Inquisition out of “fear of heresy” and that the “procedures” of the tribunals against the accused were scandalous, allowing “hostile witnesses…anonymous informers…the accusations of personal enemies…denied the right of defense…no appeal.”[25] Such abuses may have taken place, but was not the procedure, and Johnson’s conclusion of the Inquisition was not the result of a “vicious logic”. The abuses were the result of sinful actions on the part of some – not all, or even most. Of course, Johnson fails to substantiate what the details were for the “procedures” of the Inquisition. On the other hand, historians like Blötzer who use the historical documents reveal the contrary concerning inquisitorial procedure:
When no voluntary admission was made, evidence was adduced. Legally, there had to be at least two witnesses, although conscientious judges rarely contented themselves with that number. The principle had hitherto been held by the Church that the testimony of a heretic, an excommunicated person, a perjurer, in short, of an “infamous”, was worthless before the courts. But in its destination of unbelief the Church took the further step of abolishing this long established practice, and of accepting a heretic's evidence at nearly full value in trials concerning faith. This appears as early as the twelfth century in the “Decretum Gratiani”. This grave modification seems to have been defended on the ground that the heretical conventicles took place secretly, and were shrouded in great obscurity, so that reliable information could be obtained from none but themselves.
Even prior to the establishment of the Inquisition the names of the witnesses were sometimes withheld from the accused person, and this usage was legalized by Gregory IX, Innocent IV, and Alexander IV. Boniface VIII, however, set it aside by his Bull “Ut commissi vobis officii” (Sext. Decret., 1. V, tit. ii ); and commanded that at all trials, even inquisitorial, the witnesses must be named to the accused. …those impeached rarely secured legal advisers, and were therefore obliged to make personal response to the main points of a charge. This, however, was also no innovation, for in 1205 Innocent III, by the Bull “Si adversus vos” forbade any legal help for heretics… But this severity soon relaxed, and even in Eymeric's day it seems to have been the universal custom to grant heretics a legal adviser, who, however, had to be in every way beyond suspicion, “upright, of undoubted loyalty, skilled in civil and canon law, and zealous for the faith.”
Meanwhile, even in those hard times, such legal severities were felt to be excessive, and attempts were made to mitigate them in various ways, so as to protect the natural rights of the accused. First he could make known to the judge the names of his enemies: should the charge originate with them, they would be quashed without further ado.[26]
This says nothing to the fact that the Church went so far for the sake of jurisprudence that It established the Boni Viri – conferences for complicated cases by experienced men trained in theology, canon law and revered by others as blameless of misconduct. In true respect for punishments imposed by the Church,
…torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun… Conscientious and sensible judges quite properly attached no great importance to confessions extracted by torture. After long experience Eymeric declared: Quaestiones sunt fallaces et inefficaces -- i.e. the torture is deceptive and ineffectual. [27]
When punishments for heresy were formally authorized by pope Innocent IV (“Ad Exstirpanda”, May 15, 1252: the principle document of the Inquisition) and later confirmed by popes Alexander IV (November 30, 1259) and Clement IV (November 3, 1265), the rule was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum – not to result in the loss of life or limb or risk one’s life. The normative punishments by the Church for the sin of heresy were exile, excommunication and sometimes loss of property (and only if that didn’t affect a family). On the other hand, some of the Christian states punished the heresy as a crime, when after a year of excommunication without any sight toward reconciliation to the Church resulted in civil punishments – “not of ecclesiastical (church) origin” – like the stake.
The topic of religious truth, or orthodoxy, when understood as a matter of eternal significance, sheds more light on the issue of the Inquisition. It calls to mind Jesus’ parable of the Wedding Feast, where someone found in unfit dress is discovered inside. He is appropriately thrown outside “where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth” (Matthew 22:13). The Inquisition was for suspicious converts and those who were inside the Church. Even later saints like Ignatius of Loyola (1491–1556) and Teresa of Avila (1515–1582) were brought before the inquisition. The Church was purging Itself of heresy, others such as Jews and Muslims were exempt since they were outsiders.[28]
Again, the principle holds strong that the sins of some, though they affect the whole body of believers, do not corrupt the whole body. The mistreatment and evils perpetrated by Christian secular leaders, particular inquisitors or even bishops who watched people being led to the flames of the stake is of no depreciation on the reputation of the Catholic Church, but rather, are matters of private decisions and will receive divine judgment accordingly. Those who “murdered ‘heretics’”[29] failed in their vows to the Church. Like the Crusades, it cannot be logically suggested that the Inquisition in some way promoted such evils as we know that such behavior was not characteristic of every inquisitorial judge, or even most. The evil of individuals’ hearts as well as temptations, which directly opposes the preaching of the Church and the spirit of mercy, is the cause of any private sins against others during the notorious period of the Inquisition.
CHAPTER TWO:
Theological Errors about the Catholic Church
Bad Catholics Undermine the Authority of the Catholic Church
The problem of bad Catholics, such as pedophile priests, mean nuns with their rulers, and drunken laymen, isn’t really addressed as a theological issue. However, although it isn’t directly addressed against the authority of The Church, it certainly is implicitly. And of course, the issue of authority is a theological issue.
The most recent crisis in the Catholic Church is certainly scandal of pedophile priests. It must be recognized at the outset of the issue, along with the horror perpetrated against the victims, that both The Church and Jesus Christ are also victims here! Yes, The Church is a victim of pedophile priests because these men are “abusing The Church” as they are abusing Catholic children. Remember that The Church is those souls who comprise the body of believers. So an attack on a Catholic is an attack on The Church. Remember also, that The Church is The Body of Christ, and so an attack on a member of The Body of Christ is an attack on Jesus Christ. This is not the end of the attacks on The Church, however. These men also have attacked The Church, not physically, but by way of marring Her reputation. It is this marred reputation that affects the world’s perception of The Church’s authority. The media and “entertainment” industries have also joined in on the attack of The Church’s reputation by making it seem as though pedophilia or really sexual oppression were characteristic of the Catholic priesthood. On the contrary, sexual disorders within the Catholic priesthood are statistically small, around one or two percent of many thousands of priests. In fact, it has been noted by others that sexual disorders within the Catholic priesthood are statistically smaller than within the Protestant denominations.
Should Catholics take upon themselves the impression that the actions of certain Evangelical ministers caught in homosexual relations is characteristic of the Evangelical ministry. In a parallel analogy, should Christians take upon themselves the impression that because some policemen are abusive that aggression is characteristic of the police force? Should Christians take upon themselves the impression that because some politicians are crooked, take bribes, are only in it for the attention and money, that these are characteristics of all politicians? Of course not!
Those of us Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, who believe in “spiritual warfare”, truly believe together that all evil actions, not only those on the part of some in authority, but also those of laymen, are the consequence of the infection of evil in the world. Saint Paul
Certainly, the secular world believes Christians are slightly crazed in their belief in demons and their influence. Influenced by “Enlightenment” philosophy many lost all appreciation for spirituality and the recognition of evil. They do not pay attention to signs of demonic evil, such as possession or Satanic rituals, and if they do such instances are “explained away” by “psychosis”, “epilepsy”, or a mixture of both, as well as the consequence of deprived and disadvantaged youth reaching out for attention. What I want to know is how an exorcism can cure psychosis, epilepsy, and deprivation?
No, the recent priesthood scandal has no bearing upon the authority of the Catholic Church, even though Her reputation would be marred by a small percentage. Church authority is intrinsic to the nature of The Church. Still, The Church acknowledges that all Catholics are sinners in need of salvation, from the laity up to the Papacy. Just because some are more grievous sinners than others is irrelevant to the issue of authority. The Church therefore calls all men to repentance, faith in Jesus Christ, and a reformed life of grace. However, there will always be the example of bad Catholics, just as there will always be the example of bad Lutherans, the example of bad Presbyterians, the example of bad Seventh-day Adventist, the example of bad Evangelicals, etc. In other words, there will always be that percentage that doesn’t even try to live up to the calling. Concerning the issue of scandal, The Church calls attention to the curse that Christ utters: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and be drowned in the depth of the sea.”[30]
The Balance of Authorities: Scripture, Tradition & Magisterium
The National Geographic Channel is also not exempt from potentially spreading religious doubt to unwitting Christian viewers. I was in the hospital for a few days recovering from an illness when I had the opportunity to watch the new program I had heard so much anticipated hype about called “The Gospel of Judas” on the National Geographic Channel. The program did state the historical fact that it was the Catholic Church that was the instrument to have determined which books were to be in the New Testament. However, National Geographic failed to mention “how” the Church determined what was authentically Scriptural and what wasn’t. Instead, they left the question open to speculation that maybe such literature as The Gospel of Judas is a valid Gospel. “Who knows?” the program’s writers seem to imply. Another fact stated was that some of the so-called “Gospels” were known as either name title forgeries, were written much later than the apostolic age, or had highly Gnostic elements. Yet, it was merely asserted that the Church rejected some writings, like The Gospel of Judas, merely because the bishop Irenaeus of Lyons had cited it as heretical. There was no Catholic explanation, such as Gnosticism being viewed by Christian bishops as valueless as it is not in connection with the teaching of the Twelve Apostles and their successors who received their teaching authority from the Son of God.
Concluding such programs in a state of unfinished wonderment can lead some, especially those who already have an anti-Catholic bias, to move closer to a form of “Christian agnosticism”, if one can fathom such a term. (Then again, I know some who call themselves “agnostic Jews”.) The issue becomes for them, “If you cannot necessarily trust in the Bible for Christian truth, then what can you trust? Maybe there’s more that we don’t know about?” This loss of faith in the Scriptures isn’t a problem for more educated Christians, but there still is the problem for many of our youth as a “post-Enlightenment culture” and “the culture of death” are attempting to de-evangelize Christendom. In a way, though, I can see how offering such questions by these programmers is done as a form of romanticism – maybe there’s something yet to be “uncovered”.
Many untamed hearts desire to “discover” something that no one ever has. Such sentiments also fuel the hearts of many Protestant ministers who wish there was some secret of the Scriptures that they could discover. Then again, this is glory-seeking pride. In the matter of “what is Scripture”, however, over fifteen hundred years removed from the Resurrection, at the Council of Trent the Catholic Church had officially declared the Canon of Scripture “Closed”. In this respect, many historically minded Christians are coming to a greater appreciation of the authority of the Scriptures by recognizing how its authority is derived from the authority of The Church that is able to “canonize” what is Scriptural. In the first three hundred years the Church Fathers sifted through traditionally authentic and inauthentic gospels to give the people what were the first century books and letter “inspired of the Holy Spirit”. As it is the Holy Spirit who both writes Scripture and governs The Church, it is the Holy Spirit filled Episcopacy – the brotherhood of bishops – that is the official organ of The Church (the “Magisterium”) that perpetually teaches every generation and knows what He has written.
On the other hand, most Evangelicals and others hold the misconception that the Catholic Church has a greater reverence for “tradition” over Scripture. First of all, this is false in that the Catholic Church recognizes the equal importance of Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Secondly, the root of this misconception comes from the Protestant Revolt’s elevation of the Scriptures over Sacred Tradition, or really rejection of the Tradition to a large degree. Thus, there has been a loss of appreciation, or disconnect, by most non-Catholics with Early Church Early Church
Though the Early Church
Of course, as even many honest Protestant scholars recognize, it is highly inappropriate to use these Scripture verses against the Catholic notion of “Tradition” since what is being referred to in context are “human traditions”. The Catholic appreciation of the “capitalized Tradition”, or rather “Sacred Tradition”, refers to all the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles (“whether by word of mouth or by letter” [2 Thessalonians 2:15] – i.e., whether by Oral Tradition or their writings). The Sacred Tradition also included the instructions for worship – the liturgy of the Lord’s Supper – the Mass.
Herein we see a practical need for the Magisterium – the college of bishops – as having a primacy and teaching role with the Scriptures. The Church recognizes that the Magisterium is NOT superior to the Scriptures, but is the servant of the Scriptures in that the Magisterium authentically teaches what the Scriptures teach us in the appropriate context of its Tradition.
Evangelicals and others are all the more coming to the practical appreciation of this Holy Spirit guided Magisterium as they have seen the break-down of Protestantism – the splinter effect – into the sad result of denominationalism due to the idea of “Scripture Alone”. For without the Magisterium – that authoritative teaching body – “Scripture Alone” depends upon “private interpretation” and the “individual’s conscience”. This is an issue of which the Apostle Peter condemned as erroneous, stating “that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20 NASB). Peter even warned that “[Saint Paul’s] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). Even though many certain Christian sects love to provide their own interpretations of prophecy, the Apostle Peter rebukes them, pointing out that Scripture is not a private matter – it is a public matter. In other words, the Scriptures are not to be “interpreted” but rather authentically understood!
Certainly, when the Catholic Church teaches something from the Scriptures it is said to be an “interpretation”, but technically this is incorrect when one appreciates Her duty as the one who gives us the Scripture and teaches us its authentic meaning. This is not a grasp for authority, nor is it supremacy of authority, but it is a hierarchy and balance of authority. For when we understand that “The Church” is truly the Holy Spirit-filled members who make up “what The Church is” in Her nature, we see that Saint Peter, Saint John , Saint Matthew, Saint Paul , and all the other leaders of the Early Church
Ecclesiological Issues: The 4 Marks of the Church
As Christians in general, our understanding of “The Church” – our ecclesiology – comes from our understanding of our relationship both to Jesus Christ and to one another. The New Testament Scriptures use several notions and analogies to speak of the Christians relationship with Christ. Christians are “in Christ” (Romans 6:11, 8:1, 12:5, etc.) when they immerse themselves in every aspect of His teaching and gifts to His Church. As well, then, Christ is “in them” (John 17:23, 26) when Christians become partakers of the “life of grace” and receive “the spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9). The Christian is a “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19) as the Spirit of God makes His dwelling within. Collectively, then, all Christians are built together as a “temple in the Lord” (Ephesians 2:21) since they share in the “one spirit” (Ephesians 4:4). This united body of Christians being “in Christ we who are many form one body” (Romans 12:5), The Church is thus referred to as “the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 4:12; see also Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:24). The Church is also referred to as “the bride of Christ” (see Ephesians 5:25-33; Revelation 19:7, 21:9.).
Speaking to the nature of the Church, one of the most ancient creeds of The Church – the Apostle’s Creed – was once of the first articulations of the Christian faith. It was later expanded upon as the Nicene Creed. The Creed says, I believe in “the catholic church”. This calls to mind the words of Ignatius of Antioch, the disciple of the Apostles Peter and John, and the term “catholic” as meaning “universal”. After the Council of Nicaea the amended creed said, “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”. These are referred to as “the Four Marks of the Church”. Still today, with their appreciation for the true meaning of the words (especially “catholic”), many major Protestant denominations accept the Nicene Creed. Because of doctrinal controversies many Evangelical groups have abandoned the use of creeds.
The Church is “one”. I do not know of a single Scripture Christian scholar of any denomination who would suggest otherwise. This is of course due to the high tone of the New Testament’s words speaking of the oneness and necessary unity of the Christian communities. On one hand, we have the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology that teaches that Christians are united under their bishops, as Ignatius of Antioch had said. The bishops are then united to one another through a sense of collegiality or mutual cooperation. This is called the “College of Bishops
After the Protestant Revolt this recognition was lost to the Protestants as they were recognized for having succumbed to heresy (rejecting the priesthood, sacred tradition, purgatory, etc.). For those who are in heresy cannot legitimately be elevated to the episcopacy (the College of Bishops
The Church is “Apostolic”. Again, I do not know of a single Scripture Christian scholar of any denomination who would suggest otherwise. Every Protestant knows that the Church was founded upon the Apostles. For Saint Paul speaks of the church as having been “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). Likewise Protestants share the Catholic teaching that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (d. ca. late 90s). Yet, the term “apostolic” does not mean only “characteristic of an apostle”, but also of each Apostle’s “office”, each of which was filled in a succession, as spoke of by the Apostle Peter (Acts 1:20), and expanded upon as the Church grew throughout the centuries.
As they went out from Jerusalem Rome Rome
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches… by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.
Irenaeus
Against Heresies 3:3:2 [189 A.D.]
Irenaeus was essentially speaking to those who flaunted a false knowledge (i.e., Gnosticism) and those Christians who were susceptible to falling prey to it. Other than Irenaeus’ treatise there are even earlier indirect writings of the apostolic offices that allude to the Roman primacy (e.g., Clement of Rome, The Shepherd of Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth).
The Church is “Catholic”. Here’s where we start to find confusion and disagreement. As previously mentioned, there are still several major Protestant denominations who have retained the use of the word “catholic” when reciting the Nicene Creed (e.g., Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and other “Reformed” churches). These Protestants have no problem stating that they believe in “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” because they understand that the term “catholic” is principally a characteristic referring to the “universality” of the Christians faith rather than a proper title.
The only reason that the “Catholic Church” is referred to as such is due to the rise of the Eastern Orthodox schism and the Protestant schism for the sake of distinctions. The preference of titles is more a matter of polemical argumentation. For example, at the time of the Eastern schism those of the East chose to call themselves the “Orthodox Church” thus stressing their view of an orthodox faith as a distinction from the “Roman Catholic Church” who carried on the title “Catholic”, stressing the universality of the Christian faith “in all places the same”. Likewise, at the time of the Protestant schism, those breaking from the Catholic Church preferred to call their new churches “Evangelical churches” with an emphasis on their view of what the “true Gospel” message was. Other titles were also placed upon them and taken up in distinction from one another. Those who followed the German Martin Luther were clearly called “Lutherans”. Those who followed the Frenchman John Calvin were called Calvinists. John Calvin became famous for his “reformed theology” and thus there arose several “Reformed” denominations as well as Presbyterianism with the assistance of his successor John Knox. After King Henry VIII broke all of England Church of Christ
The shared acceptance of the principle of “catholicity” by Catholics and more traditional Protestants calls to mind the true oneness of the Christian faith, not so much in the area of the Church as previously spoken of, but in the area of doctrine. For the term “catholic” comes from the Greek word καθολικός, rendered katholikos, which literally translates into English as “concerning the whole” or alternatively “universal”. Together, the translations “concerning the whole” and “universal” really capture the true sense of the term “catholic” and are best summed up in the saying, “in all places at one time”. Though there were “Twelve Apostles” they transmitted “One Gospel” to the many places they preached. In other words, though there were many Christian communities spread throughout parts of Asia, Eastern Europe, and Africa , they all shared the same Gospel. Thus the term “catholic” really refers to the oneness of the Gospel.
This is where Evangelicals and other Protestants really get into trouble! The “Catholic Faith” – the “Universal Faith” – is shared by those in Rome (in Italy ), Antioch (in Syria ), Alexandria (in Egypt ), Constantinople (now “Istanbul ”, in Turkey ), and Jerusalem (in Palestine Constantinople , yet the one faith is still there). At the time of the Protestant Revolt, with the growing rejection of several core elements of the Christian faith such as the priesthood and many of the sacraments, Catholic defenders noted to the Protestants that they were clearly teaching heresy because what they were teaching was a “localized” teaching. In other words, the novel teachings of Luther and Calvin were not “universally” held throughout the world – they were making stuff up! No ministerial priesthood?! Every Christian before the Protestant Revolt recognized the ministerial priesthood, and it wasn’t just a “Roman Catholic” thing either. No Seven Sacraments?! Every Christian before the Protestant Revolt recognized the role of the Seven Sacrament. No purgatory?! Then why did all Christians and even the Jews pray for the dead? Because they recognized the necessity of purification before entering heaven (see 2 Maccabees 12:39-46; Revelation 21:22-27). Thus we follow Irenaeus’ principle and look to all those ancient Sees to verify what the catholic faith is, and if we want to be certain we turn to Rome, since “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.”
The Church is “Holy”. This is a less contentious principle with traditional Protestants when understood in the right context. Many Protestants accept this characteristic term of the Nicene Creed because they understand that it refers to the fact that it is the Church that is the minister of the “Holy Gospel”, and it is the Holy Gospel that purifies souls making them likewise “holy” – so long as they seek that purification. Thus it is not the people within the Church who are fundamentally holy, but the Gospel that is holy and is able to transform people’s lives and make them godly souls.
These Four Marks of the Church were recognized early on as the four great defining characteristics of the Church that Jesus Christ said He would “build” (Matthew 16:18). The Church is “one” because It is Christ’s “Bride” and He is not an adulterer! The Church is “holy” because it preaches to the world the holy word of God. The Church is “catholic” because there is only one Word of God as canonized by the Catholic Church in the late fourth century. Finally, the Church is “apostolic” because in His wisdom Christ set a successive leadership over the People of God to protect them from the errors of heresy.
Soteriological Issues: The Economy of Salvation
As mentioned previously, Martin Luther formulated a private theology of salvation as being achieved by “faith alone”. He used several passages of Scripture to support this view. Since faith was a gift of grace, Luther also taught then that man was justified “sola gratia” or by “grace alone” as completely the work of God for love of the sinner. It was understood by Catholic theologians, on the other hand, with the support of numerous other Biblical passages, that free will was the human agent operating in cooperation with grace as the divine agent for faith that ultimately justifies and saves souls. In other words, grace does not infringe upon free will to force one to have faith or participate in doing good works. For example, the Gospel of Christ may be preached to a man – grace working to bring him to faith – and he may be compelled by the resonating truth, but he may so obstinately choose to hold to atheistic views as they pacify his guilty conscience and keep his sins concealed. Likewise, a Christian may hold a deep faith in Christ; share with his family and friends who he knows are religious his personal theology, but then speak evil of others and indicate no interest in doing anything for anyone but himself. What would Christ say to such a man? In fact, He has said something to this issue:
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matthew 721-23)
This pericope or short passage clearly indicates that there will be some who are NOT saved by their “faith alone”. The text indicates that they certainly have faith in Jesus Christ, as indicated by calling Him “Lord, Lord”, but not only is their faith alone insufficient, so also their faith and good works are insufficient! What is sufficient for salvation then? Note that here Christ calls them “evildoers”. Not only is faith required, as well as “doing the will” of the Father, but also living a life free from evildoing – a transformed life.
One of the problems with the “Faith Alone” idea is that it tends to view salvation as a highly individualistic theology. Some have suggested that Paul was the innovator of such individualism, which reveals a great ignorance of his ecclesiology and soteriology. Christ did not come to save individuals; He came to save humanity (though not all will accept salvation). Thus God took upon Himself a pure human nature,[32] joining it to His divinity, so as to redeem our fallen human nature, when we join Him to us in Holy Communion/the Eucharist/the Real Presence of Christ. The heresy that rejects the doctrine of Original Sin necessarily rejects Christ’s atoning salvation. Here, we are not saved individually but as members of a “body”, recalling that those who are joined to Christ are joined to His Church – “the body of Christ” and “the Bride of Christ”. Through the Seven Sacraments – the covenant signs that Christ has given His Church that empower Her with His grace – Christians are united not only to Christ, then, but all the more to one another. Christ is not just the Savior of individuals, then, but Savior of The Church, as Saint Paul
We see not only an intimate connection between ecclesiology and soteriology – together being the salvation of The Church – but also between these two theologies and Christology – the theology of Christ. For another problem fueling the “Faith Alone” idea, then, comes from the Lutheran/Calvinist understanding that human righteousness is something “imputed” or merely assigned to them from the righteousness of Christ because of a view that man is “totally corrupt”. This presupposition of “radical corruption” then necessarily made it completely God’s effort to save man if humans are supposedly so corrupt in their nature that they cannot even choose to accept God. According to Luther, Original Sin poisons any good efforts of humans, thus viewing human works as essentially worthless. John Calvin took Luther’s view of justification to its end logic of pre-ordained predestination of those who are going to be saved (“unconditional election”) and those who are going to be damned (“reprobation”). Another problem of this theology, for those who hold it, is that it really starts to work on one’s sense of hope – the theological virtue which causes one to persevere in the other virtues of faith and love. Many Calvinists become scrupulous and wonder whether they are of the “elect” who have been predestined to be saved, or due to their sinfulness worry if they are of the predestined to be damned. This doctrine of “double predestination” seems to have been Calvin’s way of answering the question of why some reject the Gospel and prefer to continue living sinful and evil lives.
Nonetheless, his doctrine is considered by many theologians, Catholic and other Protestants, to be a terrible heresy as the belief implicitly sins against the virtue of hope. In other words, due to the theological virtues of faith and love, the Christian must never lose faith that any sinner, no matter how evil he has lived his life, can repent and turn to God. Some notorious sinners have turned to God at mid-life, others near the end of their lives. Granted, there is perfect contrition, which repents for the love of God, yet this is rarer as it usually comes after a deepening of faith as having been in communion with God for a longer time. Then again, there is also imperfect contrition, which repents for fear of damnation, but this is also acceptable as the beginning of the conviction of faith, whether earlier in life or at the end. Imperfect contrition is usually the initial cause of all conversions to Christ, whether Catholic or Protestant. Therefore those who are more notorious sinners, such as murderers, rapists and thieves, who repent and convert, should never be questioned, as it is God who reads the human heart. So we must never lose hope, and we must never invent doctrine in order to “explain away” difficult questions.
Doctrinal Issues: The Development of Authentic Christian Doctrine
Ironically, the Catholic Church is often accused by Evangelicals and others for having “invented” various doctrines, in spite of the fact that The Church acknowledges that It has no authority to invent or change any aspect of The Faith concerning matters of faith and morals. The Catholic Church can only teach what It was given by Christ and the Apostles. On the other hand, when it comes to matters of spiritual discipline The Church recognizes Her duty, as the Bride of Christ, to make “herself ready” (Revelation 19:7), as previously pointed out, which entails the purification the members of The Church. Such spiritual disciplines, like periods of required fasting or abstinence from certain luxuries and even clerical celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12) are clearly able to be changed. It is through spiritual disciplines – “life in the Spirit” or “the spiritual life” – that people begin to learn to control their inordinate passions, or “put to death the misdeeds of the body” (Romans 8:3), as Saint Paul put it.
Evangelicals and others falsely accuse the Catholic Church for “inventing” doctrine because most have not carefully studied the historical development of the doctrine they are considering. They hear terms like “Transubstantiation”, “Papal Infallibility” or “Immaculate Conception”, and while recognizing that such terms are not within the pages of the Bible assume that they are “unbiblical”. Then again, this scholarly awareness of “the development of Christian doctrine” was not made prominent until relatively recently (1845) by the great Anglican convert to the Catholic Church, John Henry Newman, through his influential essay on the subject. Within this essay, written right before his conversion, also comes possibly the most famous quote of the man who would eventually become a Cardinal: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”[33] This comes from the recognition that all Catholic doctrine – that is all universal Christian doctrine – was given in the apostolic age (between c. 30 A.D. during the ministry of Christ and ended c. 100 A.D. upon the death of the Apostle John). And yet, it has not only taken hundreds of years to clarify such doctrines in the face of heresy, this period of time has also afforded The Church to consider deeper implications concerning such doctrines.
In summary, in part one of Cardinal Newman’s essay, in preparation to the discussion of particular instances of authentic doctrinal developments, he first points out the natural development of ideas that humans naturally go through, and how those ideas are related to one another, revealing either consistency or contradiction. In this same respect, as the Church is a body of humans who have received a condensed revelation of God through Christ, Newman goes on to point out that developments in doctrine are to be expected as the Church grows in Her understanding and appreciation of what Christ has given Her. Likewise, then, he also points out that an infallible developing authority (the Magisterium) is to be expected, since of course Christ did “build [His] church” (Matthew 16:18) “on the foundation of the apostles” (Ephesians 2:20) who have a greater authority (1 Thessalonians 2:6). This is the “antecedent argument” which essential states that all authentic doctrines were present since the beginning, whether explicitly stated or implicitly present in implicational relationship to other authentic doctrines. Thus the authority of The Church is necessary, as a perpetual institution, to continually develop into clearer articulations the implicit doctrines.
Cardinal Newman then provides a few clear examples of this development of Catholic doctrine that all Protestants accept, some of whom are passionately anti-Catholic. Number one pertains to the canon the New Testament Scriptures. First, he points out the variances of those Early Church Fathers and bishops of the Greek East and Latin West who accepted some of the letters and the Book of Revelation while others did not. Concerning the letter of James, for example, Newman points out that “Origin, in the third century, is the first writer who distinctly mentions it among the Greeks; and it is not quotes by name by any Latin till the fourth.” Newman also points out that “Saint Jerome
“The Church at that era decided–not merely bore testimony, but passed a judgment on former testimony–decided, that certain books were of authority. And on what ground did she so decide? on the ground that hitherto a decision had been impossible, in an age of persecution, from want of opportunities for research, discussion, and testimony, from the private or local character of some of the books, and from misapprehension of the doctrine contained in others. Now, however, facilities were at length given for deciding once for all what had been in suspense and doubt for three centuries.”[35]
Then again, doubt in the authority of the Scriptures does in fact arise when a corruption in theology arises, as Newman later explained. For example, if someone invents a Christian heresy it will find conflict with the Scriptures. For as the Catholic Church had declared the Scriptures to be an “infallible guide” and “inerrant” concerning the revelation of “faith and morals”,[36] it follows that the same Scriptures can be used to reveal heresy. For, as Saint Paul had said, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). The heretic will certainly come into conflict the Christian Scriptures. Ironically, the man who claimed to have such a reverence for the Scriptures, Martin Luther, found himself ridiculing those New Testament writings that contradicted his “Faith Alone” idea. Newman also calls attention to this. “Luther himself at one time rejected the Apocalypse, called the Epistle of St. James ‘staminea,’[37] condemned the word ‘Trinity,’ fell into a kind of Eutychianism[38] in his view of the Holy Eucharist, and in a particular case sanctioned bigamy.”[39] When one rejects the divinely inspired authority of The Church, which declared the authority of the Scriptures, and chooses to rely on one’s own “interpretation” of religious matters, the individual comes into conflict with those Scriptures, as the Scriptures teach us to listen to The Church. Thus, the Catholic Church teaches that Church doctrine can not contradict the whole of Scripture. The issue of “apparent contradictions” within Scripture is really a matter of misinterpretation, and so The Church also teaches,
Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.[40]
After observing that it was the Catholic Church that authoritatively declared the canon of Scripture, Newman goes on to briefly reveal how it was also the same Church to clarify the unclear doctrine of Original Sin – the doctrine now accepted by the majority of Protestants which is intimately related to other doctrines of salvation, such as the Incarnation and the Atonement. First, he points out that “there were two principle views of Original Sin, the Greek and the African or Latin. …It may be observed, in addition, that, in spite of the forcible teaching of St. Paul on the subject, the doctrine of Original Sin appears neither in the Apostles’ nor the Nicene Creed”[41] Later, Newman expounds on an opinion as to why the doctrine developed in the Catholic Church as late as it did:
“I have already remarked on the historical fact, that the recognition of Original Sin, considered as the consequence of Adam’s fall, both as regards general acceptance and accurate understanding, a gradual process, not completed till the time of Augustine and Pelagius. … It is commonly, and reasonably, said in explanation that the fatalism, so prevalent in various shapes pagan and heretical, in the first centuries, was an obstacle to an accurate apprehension of the consequences of the fall, as the presence of the existing idolatry was to the use of images. If this be so, we have here an instance of a doctrine held back for a time by circumstances, yet in the event forcing its way into its normal shape, and at length authoritatively fix in it, that is, of a doctrine held implicitly, then asserting itself, and at length fully developed.”[42]
In other words, due to the powerful presence of the idolatry of the pagans and heretics, this served as an obstacle to an accurate understanding of the consequences of The Fall. Still, as it was implied by Saint Paul, the authentic doctrine of Original Sin “forced its way into its normal shape” until it was eventually “at length fully developed”.
Unlike the other Protestant groups during the Revolt the Anglican Church held on to many of the ancient Christians practices, therefore Newman had a greater appreciation for the doctrines of Infant Baptism and Holy Communion. And so after his discussion on Original Sin he goes on to illustrate the development of Infant Baptism and Communion in one kind. Yet, for our purposes here to illustrate that which is common to both Catholics and most non-Catholics, we’ll skip these and go to Newman’s final example concerning the Homoousion – the relationship of the Father to the Son in substance and eternity – the doctrine of the Trinity. Concerning this doctrine Newman calls attention to two different parties involved in the controversial discussions, “concerning the statements of the early Fathers on this subject, one party determined the patristic theology by the literal force of the separate expressions or phrases used in it, or by the philosophical opinions of the day; the other by the doctrine of the Catholic Church, as afterwards authoritatively declared.”[43] Thus we see that, for the common layman, it is much more practical to rely on the authoritative declarations of the Catholic Church, of course trusting that Jesus Christ had the foresight to institute a Church that would preserve undefiled Christian doctrine.
All this talk of the development of authentic Christian doctrines that had once been merely implicit to doctrines that were explicit speaks of an authority necessary to carry on such a work. This authority was at first, of course, the role of the Apostles as illustrated in the Book of Acts, chapter 15, with the account of the Council of Jerusalem. This authority was also perpetuated, of course, through the College of Bishops
Yet, before we review Cardinal Newman’s discussion of the topic of Papal Supremacy, let’s briefly clear up an anti-Catholic misconception. It is not “the city of Rome” that has any true significance concerning that bishop’s supreme authority, but it is the fact that those bishops have followed after a unique succession from the Apostle Peter, who was given the unique authority of “the keys of the kingdom” (Matthew 16:19) by Jesus Christ. This fact is illustrated in the period of the “Avignon Papacy”, when Pope Clement V moved the papacy from Rome to Avignon , France Avignon until Clement VII brought the papacy back to Rome in 1376 under the influence of the great Saint Catherine of Siena Rome Rome France
Here, we leave our discussion of Cardinal Newman’s doctrinal illustrations that are shared between Catholics and Protestants to that of Papal Supremacy of religious authority, as it is truly the crux issue of why Evangelicals and others become Catholic, and leave the non-authoritative denominations that only offer “Scriptural interpretations”.
The issue then, of Papal Supremacy, also follows the principles of the natural development of ideas and antecedent doctrines according to the circumstances of Early Church Early Church
“And, in like manner, it was natural for Christians to direct their course in matters of doctrine by the guidance of mere floating, as it were, endemic tradition, while it was fresh and strong; but in proportion as it languished, or was broken in particular places, did it become necessary to fall back its special home, first Apostolic sees, and then the See of St. Peter. Moreover, an international bond and common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial power checked the development of Council, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church.”[45]
In other words, at first Christians lived off the fresh deposit of faith that Apostles had just given to the Christian communities, then if questions of doctrine arose they turned to their local Apostolic see (like Antioch or Alexandria
From here, Newman undertakes the task of detailing the antecedent Scriptural evidence, the witness of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and the witness of writings of the early Popes themselves, to reveal the development of this needed office. For Newman points out,
“As the Church grew into form, so did the power of the Pope develop; and wherever the Pope has been renounced, decay and division have been the consequence. …Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later.”[46]
The process of preservation and development, providing infallible Christian doctrine, is ultimately, then, the work of the Holy Spirit through a visibly authoritative source: The Body of Christ. Again, if we give God the credit of foresight in His omniscience – His all knowing nature – and we as Christians believe our religion is the truth of salvation, and infallible authority is expected to develop.
The Infallibility Issue: The Work of the Holy Spirit
As previously stated, the recognition of the infallibility of the Scriptures falls back upon the infallibility of the Catholic Church that canonized certain letters and books. This infallibility is no charism of men, certainly not, but a gift of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ. For He did say to His Apostolic leadership, and not to ordinary disciples, that “when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13).
It is a common Protestant error to apply all the words of Christ to any Christian believer. In other words, the context of who Christ is speaking to is often ignored. The just mentioned passage is a prime example. So often we hear those Protestant ministers, who argue among themselves, use this verse in front of their congregations as though it were applied toward them. Another similar passage of the sayings of Christ is that of “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Matthew 18:20). Here again, this verse is often taken out of context, as it is directed toward the Apostolic ministry, and falsely applied to any “two or three” Christians. When we examine the full context of this pericope in the Gospel of Matthew we find that not only does it apply to the Church mentioned immediately before the phrase in question, it also speaks of an authority and implies infallibility and therefore the presence of the Holy Spirit within that Church:
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. (18:15-20)
As we see, this passage Jesus discusses what to do when a Christian sins. First, confront him yourself. If that doesn’t work, take witnesses to support your plea. If that doesn’t even work, take the matter “to the church” – the highest authority. Then, if he doesn’t even listen to the Church, he is to be excommunicated. Of course, this implies serious and obstinate sin. The verses of authority and infallibility follow here. “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”. Recall that this authority just given to the Apostles was previously given particularly to the Apostle Peter in Matthew 16:19 with the gift of the “keys of the kingdom”. It is not enough for Jesus to tell His Apostles that what they “bind” and “loose” on earth will have its parallel effect in heaven, He also assures them that their agreement will bear the signature of the “Father in heaven”. After this Jesus makes that statement in question concerning two or three coming together in His name. Thus, in context, we discover that this coming together is the coming together of the Church leadership. The question then becomes problematic for Evangelicals and other non-Catholics: “What church leadership has this authority, since there are literally thousands of denominations with leaderships that disagree with the leadership of the others?” Of course the answer is easy for Catholics as they recognize, along with the Eastern Orthodox and various other apostolic rites, the collegial authority of the bishops who are in the historical succession of authority from the Apostles.
As well, the previous passage mentioned from John’s Gospel also relates to the presence of the Holy Spirit within The Church and His work of guiding Her “into all truth”.
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. (John 16:12-15)
Rather than applying this passage to themselves, other Protestant commentators mistakenly interpret this passage to imply that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles, and not the Church, “into all truth”. In other words, they use this passage to support the notion of “Scripture Alone” as the ultimate work of the Apostles in which Protestants will find “all truth”. However, this is another example of eisegesis – or forcing a preconceived notion into a text. As well, as previously discussed, in all practicality, Protestants don’t really believe this as they accept the Canon of Scripture that the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit into forming, as it wasn’t codified for three hundred years until the end of the fourth century. As well, Protestants also accept what the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit into defining concerning the doctrine of Original Sin and the nature of the Holy Trinity. Such historical and practical evidence offers the better “interpretation”, or rather “understanding” of the text, to refer to The Church that Christ said He would “build” (Matthew 16:18).
Concerning the Catholic Church’s historical claim to infallibility, there is a common misconception among Evangelicals and others that this doctrine says that the Pope is always right, or that he never sins (thus the title “Holy Father”). Neither of these notions are the teaching of the doctrine of infallibility. That false notion is more accurately called “impeccability”, which has no place in the doctrine of infallibility. Rather, the doctrine of infallibility more pertains to the Church as a whole than it does to a man (the pope). The Papacy is merely the instrument of the Holy Spirit in order to bring about a function within The Church. Truly, it has been observed, that it would be a supreme arrogance to groundlessly take upon oneself a supposed jurisdiction over others. Equally arrogant, on the other hand, would it be to suppose that one’s own knowledge and understanding is greater or purer than that of two thousand years of Christian reflection, much less fifteen-hundred and seventeen years of reflection. Furthermore, it would be equally arrogant, no, foolish, to reject a system of preserving and clarifying Christian doctrine if in fact it were instituted by one’s own professed Lord and Savior.
The infallibility of the Church testifies to the infallibility of the canon of Scripture. There have been countless Protestant books that have been written trying to justify the idea that “Scripture Alone” is sufficient for creating doctrine. This may be granted as the case for very shallow or simple doctrines, but when controversy arises and interprets the same Scriptures in an alternative manner there is no harbinger, no voice of authority, to say who is correctly “interpreting” those Scriptures. Thus we see the problem of thousands of Protestant denominations.
It is not simple enough to say there are interpretational principles that reveal true doctrine and these principles are being ignored (though this is true). For if this were the case, these principles would spread quickly and resolve the dividing problem of Protestantism. In other words, Protestants would soon come to full agreement within a few decades. As it is, however, after one hundred years since the work of ecumenism has been undertaken there seems to be little sign that the Lutherans will merge with the Presbyterians, or that the Baptists will merge with the Assemblies of God, or that the countless Evangelical-Free groups have any desire to “incorporate” into a denominational body and thereby see themselves as the “restored” Christian Church. Neither the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), nor America
Ultimately, Evangelicals and others have come to appreciate the infallibility of the Catholic Church as that which provides for an “infallible Gospel”. This is not The Gospel According to Rome, as James G. McCarthy had antagonistically called it due to his Protestant re-interpretation of the Scriptures. This is The Gospel of the Apostles, expounded upon with greater implications worked out. Why should we accept James McCarthy’s interpretation of the Gospel, or any other Evangelical’s interpretation of the Gospel, if suspect that Jesus Christ had the wisdom and foresight to “build [His] church” in a way that would offer the world an authoritative understanding of the Gospel, versus having to decide which “interpretation” was the closest according to our own calculations? This would mean that every farmer, every business man, every working mother, etc., would all have to become theologians as well. On the other hand, in the Catholic Church we have some called to the ministry of perpetuating the Gospel so that the farmer, the businessman, the working mother, and everyone else can trust the Church, live Her Gospel calling of faith and purity, while going about the cares of life that the Lord has called them to. They should read the Scriptures in their spare time as a spiritual discipline, but they don’t necessarily have to be theologians, unless of course that is their calling.
CHAPTER THREE:
Biblical Errors about the Catholic Church
The Role of Scripture concerning Christian Doctrine
It is common knowledge that, as popularized by such terms as “Bible Thumpers” and “Literalists”, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have a high appreciation for the Scriptures. There are numerous Evangelical Protestant ministries with a sole focus on teaching messages or providing answers directly from the Bible. Anyone familiar with Evangelical Protestant radio may have heard of such programs as “Back to the Bible”, the “Bible Answer Man”, or “Thru The Bible”. Then again, there are countless other Evangelical ministries that go by other names with an emphasis on Scriptural teaching.
In contrast, many Evangelicals and others are under the impression that the Catholic Church has less regard for the Scriptures than She does for “Her traditions”. We have the stereotype that Catholics don’t read the Bible and the actual lie that the Catholic Church is “afraid of the Bible”. On the contrary, as already mentioned, the Scriptures have a great role within the life of the Catholic Church as they have been read from daily for the last two thousand years by The Church’s priests and monks during Mass, prayer, and study. It has to be remembered also, that before relatively recently within the last several hundred years, the majority of European people and Americans have been illiterate. This is not to suggest that the Scriptures are only for the literate or Churchmen, but a bit of historical context to understand why the Scriptures were not as accessible to the laity. Within this context also we must realize, that literacy grew alongside the growing Protestant movement. It is not as though Protestantism caused the growth of literacy, yet it certainly did implicitly promote it within the “Scripture Alone” idea. Yet the Protestant promotion of literacy was a consequence of the Revolt and not a primary motive. For the Catholic Church had always promoted Scriptural literacy and theological studies for those who could afford to send their children to a university, even to the point of regarding theology as the highest of the sciences.
Furthermore, Evangelicals and others who study the Catholic Church history and teachings from “the horse’s mouth”, rather than biased Protestant literature (thus getting beyond the many misconceptions), come to view The Church as having a higher appreciation for the Scriptures! Why and how is this? Answering why comes from the recognition that the Catholic Church teaches that we must consider the full context of Scripture in order to understand its levels of meaning. Granted, Protestants teach this as well, however, they cannot fully appreciate this principle being outside full communion with The Church. In other words, to fully appreciate the full meaning of the Scriptures one has to appreciate the context of the historical Church. For since it was The Church that wrote the Scriptures – the Old Testament church was the prophets of Israel influenced by the Holy Spirit and the New Testament church is The Body of Christ animated by the Holy Spirit – it is therefore within context of The Church that one fully understands the Scriptures.
As well, within this higher Catholic appreciation for the Scriptures is the recognition that they were not written to be some sort of catechism of doctrine. Recall the fact that the “Bible” is a library or collection of books and letters. In few places in the Old Testament the Lord did command His prophets to write down what He told them. However, within each book or letter of the Christian Bible, not one of the authors implies that his writings will be placed in some future collection to be used as a sort of doctrinal manual. Rather, Saint Paul tells Timothy that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Nowhere in this verse does it suggest or even imply that the Scriptures would become a doctrinal manual, especially considering the fact that the New Testament wouldn’t become a canonized collection for over another three hundred years. What Saint Paul Saint Paul Saint Paul
Catholic theology gives great emphasis on “typology”, or the Old Testament prophetic “types”, “figures”, or “foreshadows” that were imperfect, prophetic symbols of a greater, perfect coming reality. These types pointed first and foremost, as their ultimate expression, to Jesus Christ as the coming Messiah. Such types were manifested through personages, symbolic events, and Jewish rituals prescribed by the Lord for the nation of Israel
Moreover, typology also sees that some of the Old Testament types pointed toward the greater realities of Christian practice, the sacraments, all of which were a part of the work of Christ given to the Church. Thus Jesus said, speaking of the miraculous manna of the desert during the Exodus as a type of the Holy Eucharist,
“Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 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. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. (John 6:32, 53-56)
The words here are quite strong, and when they are taken into consideration with the writings of the Early Church Fathers for a more accurate understanding as shown below, we find that they are in fact quite literal. While the majority of Protestants deny Christ’s Eucharistic presence, all modern Evangelicals completely deny Christ in this gift of his.
In the same manner of theological principle, yet more directly, Saint Peter says that the waters of the Flood of Noah “symbolizes baptism” (1 Peter 3:21 NIV). During the Flood eight souls were saved, as Peter says (Noah and his wife, their three sons and their wives), from the waters sent as represented to “wash away sin” from the face of the earth. Of course, this was not possible, as Noah and his family still contained within themselves a fallen death-nature (Original Sin) that bore within itself the tendency toward sin (concupiscence).
Yet, it is important to note that the sacraments themselves are NOT symbols, as the prophetic types that point toward them were. It wouldn’t make much sense for an imperfect, prophetic symbol to point toward another ineffective symbol. Rather, they point to an effective reality. The manna was an ineffective type (a temporary feeding), whereas the Holy Eucharist is the effective fulfillment (an eternal feeding). The Flood was an ineffective type (a judgment on sin), whereas baptism is the effective fulfillment (the removal of original sin). The Old Testament symbolic sacrificial lambs were ineffective types pointed toward Christ as the effective reality for the forgiveness of sins. The sacraments are the effective realities that Christ established to transmit the grace of His sacrifice. Thus Saint Peter goes on to say that baptism “now saves you” (ibid.) while Saint Paul says that baptism is the “washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5) – baptism is the effective reality foreshadowed by such symbolic events as the Flood (Genesis 7-8) and the Exodus through the Red Sea (Exodus 14:10-22). Regardless of one’s translation of Scripture, in all Saint Paul also speaks of the Holy Eucharist in literal terms (see 1 Corinthians 16:10). The New American Standard Bible and the New Living Translation (NLT) refer to “the cup of blessing” and “the bread which we break” – the Holy Eucharist – as a “sharing in” the body and blood of Christ. The New International Version (NIV) refers to the Holy Eucharist as a “participation in” the body and blood of Christ. The King James Version (KJV) and the American Standard Version (ASV) refer to the Holy Eucharist as a “communion of” the body and blood of Christ. All the words translated to describe the human interaction with the – sharing in, participation in, communion of –
Furthermore, Old Testament typology also includes some of those who are in Christ, especially two of the most prominent Christian figures: Mary and the popes. Yes, the Old Testament foreshadows the centrality of Mary in her connection to Christ the King, and of the papacy as the chief steward of the King’s domain and dominion while He is absent (during Christ’s Ascension – i.e., c.33 A.D. until the Second Coming). More detail will be given to this aspect of Mariology (the theology of Mary) below concerning Marian issues, while Chapter 9 will discuss the papal allusions of the Old Testament. Yet, the greatest illustration of typology as a truly biblical Christian theology comes from the Road to Emmaus story, where Jesus finds two disciples discussing the miracles and deeds of Jesus while totally bewildered at His death. Jesus approaches them and says,
And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27, emphasis added).
As mentioned toward the end of the last chapter, there are in fact interpretational principles for being able to authentically “interpret”, or rather “understand” what the author of Scripture was trying to convey and even what God is trying to convey. There are three criteria for proper interpretation of Scripture set forth by the Second Vatican Council. The Catechism of the Catholic Church presents them:
1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.
2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“...according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”).
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.[47]
After taking into account these three criteria, one can begin to examining the Scriptures according to the different “senses” of any particular passage. There are two senses of Scripture: the literal sense, which is most commonly used, and the spiritual sense, which is used to view Christ in the Old Testament (typology). The Catechism also presents them:
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem
From all this, the Catholic Church does in fact use the Scriptures to formulate authentic Christian doctrine, but not the “Scripture Alone”. The Church also draws from Her rich Tradition – the Sacred Tradition – in order to even comprehend the Scriptures (see criteria #2 above). One of the nearsighted errors of the “Scripture Alone” idea, as it has been pointed out by former Evangelicals, is that it falsely assumes that everything that God wanted to transmit to humanity was written down in the Old and New Testaments. Then again, if the Scriptures were in fact a manual for doctrine, then we could assume that everything was written down. But since we know that this was not the intention the assumption is invalid.
In fact, there are several New Testament passages that suggest that not everything that is essential was written down. First of all, the very last two sentences of the Gospel of John says, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written” (John 21:25). As well, Saint Paul Saint Paul
Again, the red flag that pops up for Evangelicals and others due to hearing the word “tradition” by Catholics is completely unwarranted, as they are thinking of “the traditions of men”, which is not what is being talked about. As well, we must remember that the Bible, our list of books and letters that all Christians consider “Scripture”, is also a part of this Sacred Tradition, as there is no divinely inspired “table of contents” for what the list of what is to be in the Bible.
The Sacred Tradition, aiding in the development of authentic doctrine, includes the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the Early Church Fathers after them, the Church Councils, and the liturgical form of worship of the Mass that these saints preserved since the Last Supper. In other words, in order to understand the depths of the Christian Faith and authentic form of worship, The Church looks back to the understandings of those to whom the faith was given and the way in which they worshiped God. That is to say, the Catholic Church doesn’t presume to invent anything new or give “modern interpretations” of the Christian Faith. In fact, it is Her duty – as the Body of Christ – to preserve, protect, and expound upon that faith as the Sacred Magisterium.
As already illustrated by Cardinal Newman, we have several examples of The Church having used both Scripture and Sacred Tradition to formulate Christian doctrines that are believed in by most Christians. The most important examples of this are the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of Christ’s human and divine nature. Certainly, one can infer from the New Testament Scriptures the doctrine of the Trinity, but for modern Christians to take our idea of the Trinity and use the Scriptures to prove it is the error of eisegesis – that is, forcing one’s beliefs into a text. Rather, what the Church Father’s did at the Council of Nicaea in 325 when they formulated the doctrine of the Trinity was to take the evidence from those Scriptures that were revered as authentic (remembering that there was no “New Testament” yet) as well as to take into account the views of those great cities – the Apostolic sees – that had the teachings of the Apostles given to them in their fullness. However, when considering the deep questions concerning the human and divine nature of Christ it took quite a bit more reflection, considering how to correctly teach the new doctrines based on all other related doctrines. In other words, it was necessary to keep other key doctrines in consideration and build off of them, such as the Incarnation, the Atonement, the oneness of God while mysteriously three, etc.
The same principles have been applied to other doctrines that have developed over the centuries into what we have today in their current expressions. For example, the doctrine of purgatory bases itself upon the Judeo-Christian practice of prayers for the dead (see 2 Maccabees. 12:43-45 – sacrifices on behalf of the dead; 1 Corinthians 15:29-30 – baptism on behalf of the dead). As well, there is the consideration of different levels of sin – venial versus mortal – and how far they remove one from a relationship with God (see 1 John 5:16-17). Finally, there is the high appreciation for God’s justice as well as His mercy. His justice requires perfection (see Matt. 5:48) and that nothing sinful can stand before Him (see Revelation 21:27), while His mercy forgives in the next life (see Matthew 12:32) and purifies (1 Corinthians 3:10-15 – “the Day” is Judgment Day while the “fire” and “flames” is the imagery of purification).[49] It is within this great context of Judeo-Christian Tradition and Scripture that the Church Fathers taught that there was purgation after death which was eventually name “purgatory”, not necessarily a “place” but a process before entering heaven. In other words, purgatory is an aspect of entering heaven, and therefore not a “second chance” at salvation as many Protestant misrepresent the doctrine to say. The doctrine of purgatory supposes a relationship with God during life that is worthy of heaven.
The corruption of doctrine, again, as Newman pointed out, will cause a breakdown of all doctrine. For example, after Luther invented the “Faith Alone” idea we see how he soon began to reject other basic Christian doctrines due to the implications of their relationship. If we are justified and saved by “faith alone” then there is no need for the ministerial priesthood to offer the sacrifice of the Mass, the sacraments do not need to be effective means of transmitting grace, there is no need for the final purification of purgatory, etc. But did Luther even go as far as his doctrine implied? Certainly not, as he still hesitated to lose complete faith certain elements of The Faith. Likewise, after Luther endorsed the “Scripture Alone” idea we soon after saw the rise of countless interpretations of the exact same verses. Did Luther expect the tendency of opposing interpretations to take off so radically? Apparently not, as he seems to have considered his own interpretation self-evident, as do many private interpreters. In other words, what he did with the “Faith Alone” and “Scripture Alone” ideas was to get a ball rolling through the last four centuries causing the breakdown of doctrine within Protestantism. It has gotten so back that many Evangelical groups have become anti-doctrinal, that is to say, they’ve chosen to maintain a detached position concerning doctrines.
The Church in Prophecy (Beast of Revelation)
Another myth spread around by several Protestant groups, more extreme than most myths, is the one that suggests that the Papacy – the office of the pope – is the Beast of the books of Daniel and Revelation. As spoken of in Chapter One, concerning ways to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church, this is one of the most shameful, accusing the goodness of the Catholic Church to be evil. We know the Catholic Church is not evil for the simple fact that The Church preaches to love Jesus Christ, to follow Jesus Christ, to love neighbor, and to pray always. The prophet Isaiah warned, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (5:20).
Even Christian logic would prove this myth to be complete foolishness even if the Catholic Church was wrong about being The Church that Christ said He would build. First of all, the Catholic Church preaches the love of God and the love of neighbor, as well as to pray always and to follow Jesus Christ. As this is the case, non-Catholics would have faith that God would lead Catholics out of their church. In other words, it would be pretty dumb of a supposedly diabolical church to teach its members the means that would potentially set them free from It.
Then again, professional anti-Catholics who try to “prove from the Bible” that the “Roman Church” is the “Whore of Babylon” would suggest that in teaching these things She is a “counterfeit church”, and it is in Her other teachings that holds Catholics captive, such as the Catholic Church being the historic original, etc. This is easily pointed out as grasping at shadows as well, as it is either a historical fact, or not, that the Catholic Church is the “Original”. And as we shall see in the three chapters of Part Two, there is glaring evidence for this Catholic claim.
The fundamental error of those accusing the papacy of being the Beast of Revelation is in their equating pagan Rome
Today there’s always an agenda underlying the literature of those within denominations: to justify their own schism and particular doctrines. Why do they feel such an inherent reason to do this? I believe it’s because the Scripture explicitly speaks of schism and dissension as evil as it breaks Christian unity. Since Protestants are schismatic in nature they must attempt to justify themselves to pacify their consciences concerning their schism. Martin Luther and others around his time began calling the pope the anti-Christ in order to justify their excommunications from The Church. This is like someone telling their mother, “I hate you, I hate you!” after having been reprimanded. Later Protestants after Luther began running with this idea that the papacy was the anti-Christ and drawing out tidbits of history in attempt to connect this idea with Scriptural prophecy. Again, this is another case of eisegesis. Modern sensationalist writers completely ignore (if they even thought to research) the classical understanding of Revelation, chapters thirteen and seventeen, regarding the “beasts” as the Roman emperors who persecuted The Church and the false prophets who endorsed the emperors. For example, Seventh-day Adventists and others have “re-interpreted” these two figures as the “Roman” Catholic Church and the United States
What is the classical/historical understanding of these symbolic beasts? The first “beast” of Revelation thirteen represents pagan Rome
Patrick Madrid wrote an excellent essay “The Vicarius Filii Dei = 666 Argument” in his significant book Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy. Madrid
The second beast, which Adventists and others apply to the United States
To be thorough in our knowledge of matters concerning the Christian religion it is necessary to be aware not only of some who try to force their own novel ideas, opinions, or “interpretations”, but it is especially important to be aware of the historic and classical understanding given to those who first received the faith. There where heretics, right alongside the Apostles, teaching some things similar while also partially in opposition to them, thus undermining their apostolic authority. And so there have always been, from then to today, many people going off and teaching their own peculiar ideas. Just because something may sound plausible doesn’t mean it’s orthodox. In the Early Church the Christian communities founded by the Apostles looked to those ordained by the Apostles as bishops, after which in succession of teaching authority the laity and future clergy trusted in the Holy Spirit’s ability to “guide into all the truth” as promised by Jesus. Did Jesus give this promise to random men in our day who can read the Bible or to those men He chose to be the leadership of His “Church”? Recall the full context of Scripture. The core question ultimately becomes, which of these two notions promotes a more stable collective Christian faith? It may sound sweet, but when Jesus said “For where two or three have gathered together in my name, I am there in their midst” didn’t mean any “two or three” people who profess to be Christian. If that were the case it would justify heresies! In the context He was speaking to the Apostles. Jesus first said, “Tell it to the church… whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…where two or three have gathered…” Historically, that sounds remarkably a lot like a Church Council! For later, as recounted in Acts 15, we have our first historical example of the Church officially coming together to be guided into truth with the Jerusalem Council by the Apostles and first bishops.
We have the same guidance of the Holy Spirit from the Jerusalem Council in 48 to the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325, then the First Council of Constantinople 381, the Council of Ephesus in 431, the Council of Chalcedon in 451, The Second Council of Constantinople in 553, with fourteen more in between to the First Vatican Council in 1870 to the Second Vatican Council closing in 1964. There have been a total of twenty-one Ecumenical Councils where bishops throughout both the eastern and western halves of Christendom have “gathered together in [Jesus’] name” to settle matters pertaining to faith and morals. Thanks be to God for setting in place a foundation of stability for The Faith.
The Protestant assertion that “the papacy is not Biblical” ignores the historical connection of the bishops to the Apostles and particularly of the Roman bishops to the Apostle Peter. As it has been previously stated and illustrated, there was not only practical evidence for the necessity of a central bishop among all the world’s bishops, there is also Scriptural evidence that a special role was given to the Apostle Peter and that all the Apostles had a “office” that needed to be filled and perpetuated. I had a conversation once with a coworker whose husband is an Evangelical minister. She began calling me to task for being a Catholic. We began an e-mail discussion where I shared with her the foundational Catholic teaching regarding Apostolic Succession as the authority of the Christian faith, after which she replied, “We don’t believe in Apostolic Succession because it’s not Biblical”. I had a smile from cheek to cheek, as I knew for a fact it was not only Biblical, there was even an account of Apostolic Succession recorded immediately in the first chapter of The Book of Acts, where Matthias is chosen to replace the Judas who betrayed Jesus (see Acts 1:15-26). After I pointed out to her the Scriptural example of Apostolic Succession the subject oddly changed.
The Blessed Virgin Mary
One of the great stumbling blocks for Evangelicals and others in their view of the Catholic Church is the reverence and teachings concerning Mary, the mother of Christ. One misconception is that “Catholics worship Mary”. Many non-Catholics who have held this view of Catholic practice have come to discover that Catholics do not “worship” Mary in the sense that we use the word today. Rather, Catholics “honor” her, as she is both the mother of Christ and the spiritual mother of all Christians. The word “worship”, as Karl Keating has pointed out, at one time had more of a general meaning from the Old English, “which means the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. To worship in the older, larger sense is to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence to someone, whether a sage, a magistrate, or God.”[50] Thus, Englishmen would use the title “Your Worship” when greeting or responding to a person of respectable rank. However, when people mistakenly interpret older expression with modern notions, such as “worship” being given to “God alone”, it causes confusion. For this reason older Catholic materials that refer to the “worship of Mary” are to be taken in context of the meaning of the terms.
Nearly all Evangelical assert that Mary had children after she gave birth to Jesus as evidenced by the New Testament texts referring to the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus (Matthew 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31–34, 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5). What is overlooked here is the fact that in Hebrew and Aramaic language, which was spoken by Christ and His disciples, there is no word for cousin relatives, who were instead referred to as brothers and sisters. Likewise, in Greek, which the New Testament was written in, the term used for “sister” (adelphe) and for “brother” (adelphos) also have a wide range of usage, such as half-brother and cousin. When this consideration is recognized we come closer to learning the truth of the matter and discover that the Catholic teaching isn’t contradicted. In fact, when digging deeper into the matter, it has been shown that James, one of those named as Jesus’ brother, was actually His cousin, as elsewhere this James is acknowledged as the son of “Alphaeus” (Matt. 10:3). With the commonness of such names as Mary, James, and John (these are, of course, the English translations), it is easy to lose track of who is who and who is related to whom and in what manner!
On the grounds of Sacred Tradition, The Church has taught that Mary had remained a virgin due to the early Christian Tradition that she was a consecrated virgin, as spoken of in the Proto-evangelium of James (written c. A.D. 125), in which it also speaks of the Tradition that her husband Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus, was an older widower who was assigned to Mary as her guardian. On theological grounds, The Church has taught that Mary had remained a virgin due to her being a consecrated virgin as the fulfillment of her prophetic type in the Old Testament as the Arc of the Covenant. This “theology of Mary”, or Mariology, concerning the Arc of the Covenant is possibly the most profound insight of Catholic Theology that non-Catholics discover concerning Mary and her intimately united role to her Son.
Recall that the Arc of the Covenant was a pure vessel, not to be touched by anyone with the penalty of death.[51] Inside the Arc it carried the tablets of the Law or the Word of God (which Jesus fulfills as “the word made flesh” – see John 1:14), the bread from heaven in the jar of manna (which Jesus fulfills as “the bread of life” – see John 6:32-35), and Aaron’s priestly staff (which Jesus fulfills as both “great high priest” and “the atoning sacrifice for our sins” – respectively, see Hebrews 4:14 and 1 John 2:2). Thus, we see that through Mary’s cooperation with God’s will, saying “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) Jesus came into the world. She was committed to God’s will thoroughly as a consecrated virgin, through whom He was then able to fulfill the prophecy through Isaiah, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).
What Evangelicals and others come to learn when studying Catholic theology is that every Marian doctrine is “christocentric”, that is to say, it is “Christ-centered”. In other words, every doctrine about Mary is based on the doctrines about Christ. For Jesus Christ is the center of every Catholic doctrine. Mary participates with Christ as His mother. Mary achieved nothing on her own accord without the grace that Christ had provided to her. For example, Mary is principally called “Mediatrix of All Graces” (“mediatrix” being a female mediator) of the “objective redemption” to all humanity simply because she brought Christ into the world, or in equal terms, she mediated Christ to the world, He who is ultimately the Source of all graces. The Catholic Church acknowledges the words of Saint Paul
The concept of “intercession” is also a matter of mediation. When a friend asks another to “pray for me”, as Saint Paul
In a similar respect to her role as “Mediatrix”, Mary is also called the “Co-Redemptrix” because it was through her that the Redeemer came into the world. Thus she “co-”operated with God’s plan for human salvation. This is not a matter of giving any undue glory to a human being, but more a matter of the situation and its implications. Recall the controversy of the fifth century, when Christians would refer to Mary as Theotokos (“Birth-giver of God” or “Mother of God”), but the heretic Nestorius objected, saying that she should be referred to as Christotokos (“Mother of Christ”). The Council of Ephesus (431) declared that the title Theotokos was acceptable so as not to confuse the fact that Christ’s nature in its humanity and divinity were perfectly united. In other words, since Jesus was God, Mary was the mother of God. Certainly, it is not as though she created His divinity from her own being, but rather, she allowed Him to unite His divinity to her humanity. At first consideration, this sounds extremely odd, possibly even blasphemous, but when one reflects on the Incarnation more deeply – “she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” – it implies that the Holy Spirit animated Mary’s ovum or “egg”. As a result of this, having no human father, Jesus was both “fully God” and “fully Mary”, or in the words of the Church Fathers, “full God and fully man”.
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception – that Mary was also born without sin – is possibly the hardest Marian doctrine for Evangelicals and others to wrap their minds around. Yet, with proper explanation, in its relationship to Christ, the doctrine makes appropriate sense. Imagine a man grabbing a drinking glass to pour in some pure water to quench his thirst only to find that his son had used it in the sandbox. The inside is coated with dirt. Should the man use that glass? If he did, what would happen to his purified water? The doctrine of Original Sin teaches that because of The Fall the consequences of a “fallen nature” and death are passed on to everyone thereafter. So if the Holy Spirit filled the fallen nature of Mary then it would make Jesus Christ “fully God” and “fully fallen man”. This cannot be for at least two reasons: one, the presence of God could not perfectly dwell within a sinful being,[52] and two, if Jesus’ human nature was fallen then He also would need a savior from sin. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches, then, that by virtue of her “fiat”, or her “yes”, to the angel Gabriel’s invitation to bear the Son of God, her own Immaculate Conception was, in a sense, retroactively awarded to her for her faithfulness to God. Yet, in her own “yes” there remains the grace and prompting of the Holy Spirit as the underlying and causal force to bring about salvation through her womb. Thus, by freeing Mary from Original Sin, Christ was free from Original Sin as well, and by thereby united our humanity to His divinity so as to redeem our fallen nature at His resurrection. God be praised!
Then again, the implications of being sinless bring one back to the state of Adam and Eve before The Fall, being in the state Original Justice. Scripture tells us that the Original Sin of Adam and Eve brought suffering and death into the world. Yet, it is Tradition that tells us that Adam and Eve were created to live forever, since the Scriptures don’t directly claim this, but imply it. As we study the first half of Genesis we find these patriarchs living for hundreds of years, but as time drew on and sin increased in the world the human lifespan “weakened” or lessened. Even if we take this narrative semi-literal, that the ancients typically lived a lot longer,[53] the point here is that it was sin that corrupted our human nature and sin that caused death. Without sin there is no corruption or death. The implication, then, of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, for the sake of Christ’s sinless nature, developed into the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption – her being taken body and soul into heaven at the end of her earthly life. This idea is similar to that of Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) being taken away by God after a life of communion with Him. Though they were not free from Original Sin, still, they dedicated their lives to God and were therefore worthy of His presence. However, heaven was not yet opened, as Christ had not yet come to redeem the human nature, and so where they were taken remains unknown. Regardless of the uncertainty concerning Enoch and Elijah, Tradition does tell us that Mary was taken into heaven when her time was fulfilled. It is due to this Tradition, as there is remarkably NO Tradition of her burial place, that the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption has historical grounds. So we discover a doctrine form to explain the historical occurrence, which likewise gives greater insight into the work of Jesus Christ. For we see that in His mother Christ had truly achieved what we also can expect if we persevere in a life dedicated to God as well. Mary truly is the “model Christian.”
Additionally, the historical Tradition and its doctrinal development provide credible grounds for the Marian apparitions. Here, Mary is appreciated all the more as the first to proclaim Christ to the world through her own person, or through her own body, thus making her Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix. We see her still being used by God as she was at the Wedding at Cana (see John 2:3-5) to inaugurate Christ public ministry through His first miracle of turning water into wine. In this stage of Christ’s life, His mother was the first Christian missionary, revealing her divine Son to the world. In other words, Mary was the first to bring others to Christ (John 2:11). Through her apparitions, Mary continues to draw people to her Son. Such miracles as those of Fatima and Lourdes
According to Mary’s Old Testament typology, in connection with her relationship to her divine son, there are several types, most notably the prophecy of a virgin who would bear a son (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23), but also such women like Esther, Judith, and Deborah, who were used according to God’s will to mediate for the salvation of their people. Yet, we find two female types of Mary that are of greatest significance: Eve and Bathsheba. Mary as the “new Eve”, as Christ is the “new Adam”. For Saint Paul
It is hard for Evangelical Protestants to hear Catholic speak of Mary as a “mediator” because of Saint Paul Israel
The Communion of Saints
The recognition of the effectiveness of prayer is one of the aids that help Evangelicals and other Protestants to better understand and appreciated the more general Catholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints – that those who are all in Christ are bound together in a unique way. It is the recognition that those who “die in Christ” are not really “dead”, but rather, they are more “fully alive” than those on earth are. This is due to the understanding that the humanity of those who are in heaven has been perfected. Those who are still on earth are being purged of sin, if they are working with God’s grace, but due to the sin remain “less than human” in the perfect sense of the word. In other words, Original Sin has marred the image of humanity as it was to be “in the image and likeness of God”, and by Christ’s perfection and the outpouring of grace we are cleansed and lifted back up to that state before Original Sin that we call Original Justice.
Still, in seeing Catholics “praying to the saints”, there is the common misconception that Catholics worship the saints, along with Mary. The problem here comes by way of equating “prayer” with “worship”. The original Christian understanding of prayer, which in turn developed into the English word meaning to “pray”, was to ask something of someone else, and anyone for that matter. Thus, we have Old English expressions such as when Shakespeare wrote, “I pray thee, good Mercutio, let’s retire”.[55] We see, then, that it is a newer practice and re-defining of the word to restrict “prayer” as something given to God alone.
Under the Old Covenant, praying to the dead would have been pointless due to the fact that the gates of heaven were not yet open, as Christ had not yet won salvation. All souls, whether dead or alive, were still in need of forgiveness and purification before they could bear the Holy Presence of God. Yet, prayers and sacrifices for the dead were made for the reason of their sinfulness. Now, however, under the New Covenant, Christ has provided The Church with the means of the forgiveness of sins through the washing of Baptism and the other sacraments that follow, especially Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist. In Baptism souls are not only washed free from Original Sin, as Saint Paul wrote to Titus, “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5), whereby they are also joined to Christ in a covenant relationship (see Galatians 3:27). Reconciliation heals any breaks in that relationship after Baptism, as Christ gave the Apostles – The Church – the power to either forgive or not to forgive sins (see John 20:22-23). Finally, the Holy Eucharist joins the Christian intimately to Christ and to one another, literally forming them into the Body of Christ – The Church – along with all others throughout the centuries. In other words, those who are “baptized in Christ” today are joined together with those who were “baptized in Christ” in the first century. Through the Holy Eucharist “we who are many” come together to “partake of the one bread” which is a “sharing in the blood” and a “sharing in the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). This sharing in the body and blood of Christ, as will be focused on in more detail in a moment, is the “one sacrifice for sins for all time” as spoken of in the Letter to the Hebrews. It is through this New Covenant, this supernatural relationship Christians share together with Christ that perpetually joins them into a supernatural relationship with one another. As Jesus Christ has redeemed our very humanity by joining His divinity to it, the divine grace that Christians receive links them all together.
In one respect, Saint Paul points out that Christians are so intimately linked as members of one body that, “if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it” (1 Corinthians 12:26). In another respect, the divine grace of God manifests itself in many ways for the building up of The Church. And so Saint Paul
The Sacraments are Scriptural, Historical,[56] and Effective
The idea of “covenant” is probably the most central theme within Sacred Tradition and therefore the most central theme within Sacred Scripture also. They were sacred oaths sworn before both men and God and made between both men and God. Following the idea of covenant in theological importance are the realities of sin and human sanctification, as the first covenant was established at creation before the fall.
According to the ancient Hebrew Tradition of swearing covenant oaths they were understood as the formation of family bonds toward a peaceful unification. Thus, treaties and marriages were some of such covenants between men. With a righteous God covenants became a form of reconciliation, as sin caused a division between his righteousness and humanity’s sinfulness. Covenants were therefore a serious matter, with which came blessings for those who lived up to their end of the covenant agreement and curses for those who failed to live up to the covenant. The curse was often banishment or death for treaty breakers and obstinate sinners.
In his conversion story former Presbyterian minister Dr. Scott Hahn describes his biblical studies of the covenants wherein he was shocked to discover the connection between the Hebrew terminology and the Christian translation into Latin. The Hebrew word for oath swearing: shaba
Before there was even a collective “New Testament” (c. A.D. 390-400) the Catholic Church developed the Nicene Creed as something that Christians could look to as an authoritative expression of Christian doctrine. Within the Creed it expressed Jesus Christ as “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten and not made, one in being with the Father, through Him all things were made”. This creed was developed to fight the Arian heresy that denied the full divinity of Christ due to Arius’s interpretations of Scripture. The Creed went on to proclaim, “For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven, by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures”. Thus Jesus Christ is The Sacrament – the “Visible Sign of Grace” – for human salvation. Jesus Christ is The Sacrament of the sacraments.
Jesus Christ is both the Source and the Goal of each sacrament. The old Baltimore Catechism defines a sacrament as “an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give Grace”. In other words, Christ gave the sacraments to The Church in order to bring It into greater union with Him. The sacramental or tangible presence of Christ and His grace through the Seven Sacraments of the New Covenant becomes recognizable and opens up an understanding for Evangelicals and others when one truly begins to appreciate not only our own human needs, but also the true humanity of Christ, as the above section of the Nicene Creed relates.
Another heresy that attacked early Christianity was that of Gnosticism, which essentially denied the goodness of the created world, the human body, and thus many of them tended to either deny the humanity of the God-man as being only an illusion or to deny His suffering. As humans we are both substance and spirit. The sacraments are both substance and Holy Spirit. In combating Gnosticism the teaching of the Apostles was that, though fallen, our humanity was still created good and therefore worthy to be redeemed. Thus Christ’s Resurrection testifies to goodness of what has been created by God.[58] Through the sacraments then, Christ not only ministers to the human soul with the grace of the Holy Spirit that they administer, He also ministers to our bodies as being fortified or strengthened in that grace. As a result both body and soul are redeemed as they are brought into union with Christ through the sacraments.
Some of the sacraments, like marriage, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (or the Eucharist) are recognized in the New Testament Scriptures by most Christians, though many do not categorize them as “sacraments” or the same perspectives concerning them. Nevertheless, there are other sacraments, like the priesthood, confirmation, reconciliation (otherwise known as “confession” or “penance”), and anointing of the sick, all of which are also in the Scriptures but denied by some accepted by others.
THE SACRAMENTS OF INITIATION
The Regeneration of Baptism
Baptism brings individuals into union with Christ by the purification of the soul from Original Sin and personal sin if baptized as an adult. It is through the grace of baptism that one is united to God, no longer a soul in exile.
As a former Baptist Bible teacher, convert Stephen K. Ray “wrote the book” on the history of the sacrament of baptism in Part Two of his family’s significant conversion story Crossing The Tiber. Ray systematically begins with Scripture, goes through the writings of the writings of the Apostles’ disciples the Apostolic Fathers and their successors the Early Church Fathers, and then compares all that with current Catholic teaching on baptism.
Since the majority of Christians believe in the practice of baptism as it is illustrated in the New Testament it seems unnecessary to discuss all the Scriptural foundations. Yet, for purpose of describing how Evangelicals and others discover the ancient Christian understandings of the catholic (universal) thought and practice of the sacrament, only that which is disputed will be discussed. The controversy between Catholics and Protestants concerning baptism centers upon the “nature” of the ritual as to what it accomplishes, if anything. The Traditional Catholic teaching is that baptism, like all the sacraments, effectively “accomplishes what it signifies”.[59] In other words, though baptism is symbolic of a washing away of sin, it is not just a symbol but actually does what the symbol suggests by the power of the Holy Spirit. Another way of articulating the ancient understanding as an “effective” ritual is by referring to the sacrament as “regenerative” – that it actually regenerates the soul – which is the way Saint Paul describes it to Titus: “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).
In this same vision of the effectiveness of baptism Saint Peter uses strong words that are often hard to deal with for those Protestants who view the ritual as only symbolic as a public profession of faith. Symbols are not regarded as instruments of salvation for Protestants, which is the same for Catholics. Yet, the Chief Apostle says to his general audience, “baptism now saves you – not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). As mentioned above, within the previous verse 20, this passage provides one of the typological foundations for baptism with individuals having been saved through water. Saint Peter describes baptism not as a physical or exterior washing for the “removal of dirt”, but rather as a spiritual washing for “an appeal to God for a good conscience”. For Peter the ritual is effective as declares that “baptism now saves you…”, and as The Church says of all the sacraments, it has received its effectiveness “…through the resurrection of Christ”. Baptism unites the individual to Christ in His resurrection. Thus, we say that it at the moment of baptism that one truly becomes a “Christian” as they are first united to Jesus Christ.
Beginning with Abraham a covenant was established whereby his descendants were given a mark or sign of their union with God. Saint Paul, likened the sacrament of baptism to the mark of circumcision, whereby Christians are united to Christ as though “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Colossians 2:11-12[60]). For those who follow after Christ baptism becomes the effective “working of God” in that individuals “have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). The ordinary manner of baptism by immersion better symbolizes being buried as Christ was buried in the tomb, but it is also effective in its regenerative action, as Paul stated to Timothy, placing the new Christian in a walk with Christ toward the goal of the final resurrection of the dead.
Furthermore, it is because baptism is understood as “effective” that the Early Christians administered baptism to infants and children as well as adult converts. As Paul likened baptism to circumcision, as the Jewish mark of their covenant, baptism becomes the Christian mark of a regenerated soul. Jewish baby boys entered the covenant of Abraham under the consent of their parents who were called to be the primary developers of their children’s faith (see Deuteronomy 4:9, 6:4-9). Likewise, passing from Tradition to Tradition, this same recognition of “parental consent” over children and their “parental duty” to raise their children up in The Faith was well alive in the Christian communities of The Church.
Baptism was immediately controversial between the “old way” Jews and the “new way” Jews (i.e., Jewish Christians) as it became the new mode of entrance into the New Covenant, as circumcision previously was. We recall in Acts, chapter 15, that the Council of Jerusalem was held to decide upon the matter. Of course, it was decided upon that the Gentile converts did not need to be circumcised to become Christians as it was clear that the Holy Spirit had already fallen upon them after having received baptism and confirmation.
The Apostolic and Early Church Fathers have much to say about this principle sacrament which initiates the Christian into the life of grace continued the others. Concerning Christ taking on our human nature for the complete redemption of it, Saint Irenaeus says,
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age
Irenaeus
Against Heresies, 2:22:4 (A.D. 189)[61]
In other words, Jesus Christ is not limited to only adults. He is for everyone, as is the grace He provides. There is no “age requirement” for any of the sacraments. Thus the Christian priest Saint Hippolytus (c. 170 – c. 236) gives the instruction, “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition, 21:16 [A.D. 215]).[62] Yet, in Her prudence The Church does set seasons when the Christian is best disposed to those graces, such as concerning baptism, confirmation, First Holy Communion, Holy Matrimony, and Holy Orders. Reconciliation and anointing of the sick are primarily under the individual Christian’s conscience and sensible occasion.
What is notable is how the Early Church Fathers interpreted John 3:3 concerning being “born again” as a reference to being baptized. To be “born again” is a spiritual experience, as Evangelicals hold, yet it is a spiritual experience in the biblical context of the sacrament of baptism. Thus, all baptized Catholics are “born again”, whether as infants freed from Original Sin, as The Church teaches, or as adults freed from both Original Sin and personal sin. And so the Fathers speak of baptism as a being necessary for “the remission of sins”, becoming “spiritually regenerated”, or a process of “grace, illumination, perfection, and washing”.
‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’
Hermas
The Shepherd, 4:3:1–2 (A.D. 80)
[After a profession of faith, prayer and fasting] Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: ‘In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’
Justin Martyr
First Apology, 61:14–17 (A.D. 151)
Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration—all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God
Theophilus of Antioch
To Autolycus, 12:16 (A.D. 181)
For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’
Irenaeus
Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190)
When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal… ‘and sons of the Most High’ [Ps. 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation"
Clement of Alexandria
The Instructor of Children, 1:6:26:1 (A.D. 191)
[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’
Tertullian
Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203)[63]
In all this the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that baptism has a variety of effects upon both the Christian’s soul and life:
The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.[64]
Thus we see that baptism is not only the new means of salvation (it “now saves you”) for the forgiveness of sins, it is also that sign which technically makes an individual a Christian, a child of God, a member of The Church, and a minister of the Gospel to the world.
The Power of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation
Recall Newman’s recognition of the early Christians, in that when one had a question about doctrine the first thing they did was to turn to the Apostolic Sees for a unanimous answer. It is clear that confirmation is an authentic sacrament by virtue of the fact that all the Apostolic Sees of Europe and Asia (Rome , Antioch , Alexandria , Constantinople, and Jerusalem
Scripturally, the New Testament illustrates the sacrament of confirmation alongside baptism, and therefore it did not yet have its own title as did baptism. Nonetheless, it was practiced as though the completion of baptism. The practice was accomplished through the “laying on of hands”, as was also the case for ordination. In other words, it was an “anointing”. Thus, in the Eastern churches the rituals of baptism and confirmation are still done together with infants. Souls are “cleansed” with water and anointed with oil. In the Western Church Western Church
There are clear examples of confirmation being performed in the book of Acts by the Apostles as an aspect of their ministry. Saint Luke describes an instance when the Saints Peter and John perform confirmation:
Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria
Later on in Acts, Luke describes an instance when Saint Paul
[Paul] said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John's baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. (Acts 19:2-6)
As has often the case within Church history, a doctrine that has been commonly held has not been an “issue” until someone begins to deny it. There is no reason to give continual instruction or elaborate upon something that is commonplace within the Christian community. And yet, there never ceases to be some who are instructed in the faith and call into question only certain aspects of it. One of many examples is that of confirmation. What did some of the earliest Church Fathers have to say about this anointing? Nearing the end of the second century we find them feeling the need to explain that this “ancient discipline” is related to the anointing that the priests of the Old Testament, where also like baptism it “profits us spiritually”. It has a true spiritual effectiveness.
Are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? It is on this account that we are called Christians: because we are anointed with the oil of God
Theophilus of Antioch
To Autolycus, 1:12 (A.D. 181)
After coming from the place of washing we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction, from the ancient discipline by which [those] in the priesthood . . . were accustomed to be anointed with a horn of oil, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. . . . So also with us, the unction runs on the body and profits us spiritually, in the same way that baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. After this, the hand is imposed for a blessing, invoking and inviting the Holy Spirit
Tertullian
Baptism, 7:1–2, 8:1 (A.D. 203)
The bishop, imposing his hand on them, shall make an invocation, saying, ‘O Lord God, who made them worthy of the remission of sins through the Holy Spirit’s washing unto rebirth, send into them your grace so that they may serve you according to your will, for there is glory to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen.’ Then, pouring the consecrated oil into his hand and imposing it on the head of the baptized, he shall say, ‘I anoint you with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit.’ Signing them on the forehead, he shall kiss them and say, ‘The Lord be with you.’ He that has been signed shall say, ‘And with your spirit.’
Hippolytus
The Apostolic Tradition, 21–22 (A.D. 215)[65]
As described like baptism, confirmation also accomplishes what it signifies, which is an “invoking and inviting” of the Holy Spirit which empowers the Christian to boldly preach the Gospel. Yet it is true that many Evangelical Protestants have boldly preached without the sacrament of confirmation. Is there a greater significance then? Concerning the all the effects of confirmation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church elaborates,
Confirmation perfects Baptismal grace; it is the sacrament which gives the Holy Spirit in order to root us more deeply in the divine filiation, incorporate us more firmly into Christ, strengthen our bond with the Church, associate us more closely with her mission, and help us bear witness to the Christian faith in words accompanied by deeds.
Confirmation, like Baptism, imprints a spiritual mark or indelible character on the Christian's soul; for this reason one can receive this sacrament only once in one's life. [66]
As we see, confirmation also affects both the soul and the mission of the confirmed Christian, not being just an empty ritual, but in fact called into the mission field of life. For every Christian is called to share the “Good News” of Jesus Christ with family, friends, neighbors, and live it in such a way as to convince even one’s own “enemies”.
Immanuel (God with Us) in the Holy Eucharist
The pinnacle of the human’s experience is the discovery of Jesus Christ as the Savior from sin and God of our longing. He is God who loved us enough to take on our created nature and suffer and die inside it in order to redeem human sufferings and deaths. Likewise, the pinnacle of the Christian’s experience is the ability to substantially receive Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist (or Holy Communion) under the signs of bread and wine transformed into His glorified body and blood. In receiving Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist we acknowledge Him a “Lord” as we confess the Creed and give our “Amen” before we make His home our vey bodies – the “temple of the Holy Spirit” (see 1 Corinthians 6:19).
The controversy between Catholics and Protestants – again, not an issue in the ancient Eastern rites – is the belief of whether or not Jesus Christ is in fact “substantially” present in the Holy Eucharist. Catholics raised up in the ancient teachings of the Christian faith are taught that it is the power of the Holy Spirit by which the elements of bread and wine are transformed or “transubstantiated” into the real flesh and blood of Christ. Evangelicals and others come to appreciate this great mystery of faith by its relationship to the Incarnation of God in becoming a man. It is also by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus the action of “transubstantiation” (or “transformed substance”) at Mass is not “magic” on the part of the priest as it is the work of God and not man. The priest is simply fulfilling the duty that Christ instructed him, saying “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). Nor is the worship and adoration of the Holy Eucharist “idolatry” as it is the “Real Presence” of Christ, just as it was not idolatry when the magi worshiped the infant Christ (see Matthew 2:11), or when the Apostles realized that Jesus was God in the flesh and worshiped Him (see Matthew 14:33, 28:9, 17), as also did the man who was born blind (see John 9:38). Christians have always worshiped Christ, both when He walked among men and when He gave Himself to the Church as the Holy Eucharist.
The biblical foundations for the Eucharist as both a prophetic, sacrificial offering and a Real Presence are numerous. As a ritual sacrifice or “offering” the Old Testament first speak of the mysterious priest Melchizedek who made an offering of bread and wine before God with Abraham (see Genesis 14:18-20). The Book of Hebrews point to Psalms 110:4 as a prophecy of Christ; that He was sent to be “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (see Hebrews, chapters 7). First of all, the order of Melchizedek is a universal priesthood “without genealogy” (7:3). In other words, it was not of the Levitical priesthood of the Jews as this was not yet established. Secondly, the ritual offering of Melchizedek was bread and wine. Thus, the prophet Malachi prophesied of a worldwide grain offering (i.e., not based in Jerusalem
“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 1:11).
Evangelicals and other non-Catholic Christians may point out that Hebrews, chapter 7, discusses the priesthood of Christ, and not a priesthood of men. However, it should be called attention to the fact that Hebrews 7 is explicitly focused on justifying Christ as the Messianic high priest. However, The Church also takes into consideration what Christ did as recorded in the gospel. Hebrews, chapter 9, went on to connect Christ as the high priest who offered up His own blood (i.e., His suffering and Crucifixion), instead of that of goats and bulls which were types, so as to become “mediator of a new covenant” (Hebrews 9:15). And so we have the prophecy of Isaiah, “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (53:5). Thus Jesus Christ not only fulfilled His prophetic priesthood of self-sacrifice, He also fulfilled His prophetic priesthood of establishing a “new covenant” and a “grain offering” at the Last Supper. It is here that we notice several matters. But first, we need to back up to the Feeding of the Five Thousand that took place one year before the Last Supper.
First, Christ declares His offering of bread (or “grain”) and wine to be His body and blood. The Old Testament speaks of the manna in the desert given to the Hebrews of the Exodus, which Jesus relates in a typological way to Himself saying,
Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:49-58, emphases added)
Catholic theologians and apologists point out the forcefulness and literalness of Jesus’ words in this highly important chapter of all Scripture. For in it Jesus says “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” In other words, this teaching pertains directly to one’s salvation and therefore he better get it right! Catholic Scripture scholars also point out that the Jews argued with one another because they took Jesus literally. And yet, Jesus did not correct them as though He was only speaking “metaphorically”, as most Protestant readers interpret.[67]
One year later then, Jesus fulfills His promise at Passover of giving to The Church His body and blood to consume in the institution of the Holy Eucharist.
While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:26-28)
The Greek words used are very literal as well. “This is My body… this is my blood”. Touto estin to soma mou. Sacred Tradition recognizes this as the beginning of Christ’s passion. Catholic convert and former Presbyterian minister Scott Hahn points this out in his famous discussions on the New Covenant.[68] For all that follows is Christ’s captivity, mock trial, scourging, crowning of thorns and crucifixion. In other words, Christ spoke of His flesh that would soon suffer and die and mystically applied it to the Last Supper. Secondly, during the Last Supper Christ tells His Apostles to “do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). These words necessarily imply an institution of ritual, thereby making the Apostles priests. Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out,
The Eucharist that Christ institutes at that moment will be the memorial of his sacrifice. Jesus includes the apostles in his own offering and bids them perpetuate it. By doing so, the Lord institutes his apostles as priests of the New Covenant: “For their sakes I sanctify myself, so that they also may be sanctified in truth.”[69]
By connecting His flesh that was to be sacrificed and thus memorialized Christ was also perpetuating His Presence within The Church. And so His word’s “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20) is often cited with reference to His perpetual sacramental presence, in this context regarding the sacrament of baptism (see 28:19) – the first of the sacraments of His presence. Yet, like Jesus Christ being the “Sacrament the sacraments”, so also the Eucharist is the “‘Sacrament of sacraments’: ‘all other sacraments are ordered to it as to their end.’”[70] For Jesus Christ has always been the Great Sacrament of God’s Presence, whether it was during His ministry on earth while walking through Palestine or during His ministry within The Church thereafter as The Food for our souls.
The Church Fathers are also unanimous as to the literal interpretation of John, chapter 6, and the Eucharist as being
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible
Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans, 7:3 (A.D. 110)
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. …They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes"
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2–7:1 (A.D. 110)
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
Justin Martyr
First Apology, 66 (A.D. 151)
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?
Irenaeus
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)
‘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
Clement of Alexandria
The Instructor of Children, 1:6:43:3 (A.D. 191)
[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God
Tertullian
The Resurrection of the Dead, 8 (A.D. 210)
‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]
Hippolytus
Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs (A.D. 217)[71]
In fact, many converts to the Catholic Church have been surprised by the discovery that belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist went unchallenged by those within The Church for the first thousands years.
It wasn’t until Berengarius of Tours (c. 999-1088) that a formal denial was advanced of both the Real Presence and what was being more clearly articulated in theological circles as “Transubstantiation,” or a complete “transformation of substance” from bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ. In the doctrine of Transubstantiation, from the teaching of the Scriptures and the Early Church
However, even after Berengarius who would discover the error of his theology and recant of his heresy and be reconciled to The Church, there would come any collective denial of the Eucharist until the Protestant Revolt. Herein various Eucharistic theologies were conceived of and some men slipped further from orthodoxy than others. Martin Luther slipped away from The Church’s teaching by denying the doctrine of Transubstantiation while offering his idea of a “sacramental union” of the Real Presence as in and around the bread and wine. Though the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist still existed, in Luther’s mind the substance of bread and wine had not changed. John Calvin slipped further from The Church’s teaching by denying Transubstantiation and imagined that Christ was only really present to true believers (i.e., “the elect”). Finally, Ulrich Zwingli slipped the farthest from The Church’s teaching, like Berengarius in his earlier period, by denying both Transubstantiation and the Real Presence. For Zwingli the Eucharist was merely symbolic, which came to be referred to as “Memorialism”.
The principle of clarity for the Catholic convert in this matter, and really in all theological matters, comes by way of discovering the biblical and historical nature of The Church as having the authority to clarify what is authentic doctrine. As Christians we do not have to worry about or wonder “who is right”, but simply look to The Church that has clarified doctrine through the ecumenical councils of the last two thousand years.
THE SACRAMENTS OF SERVICE
Commissioned to Preach and Govern through Holy Orders
As baptism generally calls the new Christian to be a “minister” of the Gospel to the world, there still remains the clear, time-tested need for authority within The Church. In God’s wisdom and foresight Christ did not leave The Church in a state of individualistic anarchy. This authority within the Early Church
All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. (Matthew 18-19)
The reader of the Gospel of Matthew should ask, “How could Jesus expect His Apostles to make disciples of ‘all the nations’?” The historian recognizes that they did not, as none of the Apostles had made it to the nations of China, of Northern Europe, of mid- and South Africa, much less the “undiscovered” Americas. Aside from the realist’s intuitiveness and the historian’s basic facts, The Church that those Apostles founded also has something to say about the Great Commission. The Great Commission was not an individualistic mission, as though only to twelve men, but a collective mission – the mission of The Church. For the Great Commission did not end with the Twelve. For when we read the Acts of the Apostles and the pastoral letters of Saint Paul
The Apostles’ “commission” was a sharing in the mission and authority of Jesus Christ, as the term indicates, since He had promised to be with them always during this Commission. Christ’s mission was to save humanity from sin. Christ’s authority was the power and truth of His word as proved by His very resurrection. For the Resurrection of Christ was the sign of proof to His Jewish disciples that He was not a liar and therefore He was truly righteous and so vindicated by God. THAT is the essence of the Gospel. Thus Saint Paul
Evangelicals and others often come to an appreciation of the biblical and historical institution of bishops when they recognize the Apostles actions in perpetuating their ministry, and the historical nature of biblical translation. First of all, not every Christian is called to apostleship, thus Saint Paul
Secondly, concerning biblical translations, one of the problems for many people who read the Bible today, especially unsuspecting lay persons in connecting Church history to the Christian Scriptures comes by way of modern translations. In older English translations of the New Testament the Greek term episcopoi was rendered bisceop (or in modern English “bishop”), since the existing role within The Church was what was being referenced in the Scriptures as well as having the same meaning. Now, however, many modern Christians have lost this appreciation for the history of older words and translations of the Scriptures due to modern versions and contemporary English. Where we once read the word “bishop” and related it to a central priest within the Church, as written in the King James Version, we now often read the word “overseer” in literal translations. When Evangelicals read modern translations they do not even flinch, as such a word as “overseer” is as general and normal to their own form of “elder”. When many Catholics read this modern translation replacing “overseer” for “bishop” they instead lose the connection. The terms bishop and overseer, however, according to their etymologies, have the exact same meaning and application. However, in modern usages of the terms they are not equal! A man may be an overseer of a department of a company, but that does not make him the bishop of the company. Likewise, an Evangelical minister may be referred to as an overseer by his congregation, but that is not the same function as it was in the Early Church
The Apostle Peter sets the historical prerogative, as the first pope, for his successors in calling for the election of new bishops, whether personally or through his consent. As well, it is Saint Peter who is the first to make clear Apostleship, and therefore episcopacy (the collective of bishops) is an “office”, something which is necessarily passed on as an administrative role. As will be discussed below, the twofold administrative duties of the Apostles/bishops is to teach and govern. For in Acts 1:15-26 Saint Peter takes charge and as his first administrative task he replaces Judas, quoting Psalm 109:8, “Let another man take his office.” Matthias is chosen.
The Apostle Paul takes up his own teaching role over Timothy, and in harmony with Saint Peter reaffirms that the role of bishop is an “office” (1 Timothy 3:1) – an office only to be fulfilled by men of clean reputation (v. 2-7). The bishops of the Early Church paralleled the Apostles, such as biblical Saints Timothy who oversaw the flock in Ephesus and Titus who oversaw the flock in Gortyn, Crete . So as the Apostles were disciples of Jesus Christ, the bishops were the disciples of the Apostles. When the next generation rose up the next bishops were chosen among those who had been disciples of the previous bishops.[73] Apostolic Succession is the perpetuation of this special discipleship with the openness to possible leadership within The Church.
The Church points out that the proper understanding of leadership is to be first and foremost a “servant”. For leading others is to serve them by leading them down right paths. Thus many of the popes since Pope Saint Gregory I have chosen to use the title Servus Servorum Dei (Latin: “Servant of the Servants of God”) as an allusion to Matthew 20:25-27 against lording one’s authority over others and the call to servitude.
The first foundational role of the bishop is to “preach” or to teach in The Church by teaching the portion of Christ’s flock he is temporarily given charge over – his diocese. Thus the bishop is the primary preacher in succession of the Apostles as the primary teachers. For as we hear within the gospels and the letters of the Apostles, there is the real problem of and clear danger of Christians being led off by “false teachers” (2 Peter 2:1) and “false prophets” (Matthew 7:15, 24:11; 1 John 4:1) who would preach “a different gospel” (2 Corinthians 11:4).
The second foundational role of the bishop is to govern in The Church by governing his diocese. Such biblically described situations that require such a governing authority is the need for “excommunication” (see 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20[74]) to carry out this role. A positive aspect of governing within The Church, on the other hand, would include such issues the ordination of new priests and deacons to assist the local congregations, the administration of the financial needs of various congregations and the sharing between the richer and poorer parishes, as well as decisions concerning diocesan-wide projects such as building new shrines or parish churches or consolidating others.
Accordingly, we also know then that not only did the Apostles install bishops in the Early Church as the leaders of the local congregations, when studying the Book of Acts we find the creation of other subservient roles or offices: “presbyters” or “priests”[75] (Greek: presbuteroi) and deacons (Greek: diakonoi). Some scholars have a hard time imaging that the Early Church
Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest
Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Magnesians, 6:1 (A.D. 110)
Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God
Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Trallians, 2:1–3 (A.D. 110)
A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere
Clement of Alexandria
The Instructor of Children, 3:12:97:2 (A.D. 191)
When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful...
On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains.
Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: ‘O God, who have created all things and have set them in order through your Word; Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to make clear to us your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests, so that he may serve with a pure heart and without blame, and that, ever giving praise to you, he may be accounted by your good will as worthy of this high office: through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen
Hippolytus
The Apostolic Tradition, 9 (A.D. 215)
By the time we get to Saint Hippolytus’ time we find clear articulations of the roles of these three offices of the “Apostolic Tradition” that we seen within the whole Church (East and West). It wasn’t until the Protestant Revolt and the elimination of the ministerial priesthood in the “denominations” of the Protestants (with the exception of the Anglicans, albeit their ordinations were determined to be invalid, lacking Apostolic Succession[76]).
In nearly all cultures marital unions have been a cornerstone to their civilizations. Of course, herein there have been many different expressions of marriage, such as monogamy, polygyny, and polyandry. For many cultures marriage is little more than a contract or arrangement wherein children and property are protected. For some cultures, however, especially those descended from the Semitic peoples of the Middle East , marriage has had a deeper religious meaning as understood from the revelations given to the prophets. With religious truths culminating in the revelation of Jesus Christ, the sacrament of marriage, or Holy Matrimony, had found it ultimate meaning in its design by God.
Still, even though the revelation was given, it took time to unpack and understand. Thus there has been a legitimate amount of development over the centuries, especially as societies have become freer, in the Church’s appreciation for the depths of what marriage represents. And yet, the seed of the apostolic revelation is the same as that blossomed understanding.
Although Saint Paul
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. …For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? (1 Corinthians 7:14, 16)
Secondly, Paul says marriage represents a “great mystery” as it is reflective of the relationship between God and humanity and between Christ and the Church – the Lover to His Beloved. The last part of Ephesians 5 can sound rather authoritarian to those with feminist leanings due to its hierarchical teaching concerning husbands as the head of the wives. Regardless, there is a natural theology behind marriage, as well as a revealed theology concerning its representation of Christ to the Church. And so Paul makes the parallel, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body” (v. 22-23). Yet, what is often ignored is beautiful in admonition in the following lines toward husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,… So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church. (v. 25, 28-29)
For women, this is clearly a Judeo-Christian teaching that takes humility to bear, just as it takes humility for men to bear the authority of Christ over their heads. Still, in the mystery of these relationships are profound bonds of unity. Thus Paul restates the words of Genesis that were restated by Christ: that when a man leaves home and is joined to his wife they “become one flesh.”[77] This spiritual union between men and women after entering into an intimate relationship is clearly recognizable even by psychologists today. The attachment that forms is often hard to break. Sadly, however, in recent decades our cultures have become desensitized to the unrestrained lusts instigated by the “Sexual Revolution” and thus begun down a road of escalation in fornication, promiscuity, and divorce – all sins against marriage. Yet, though sin is a fact of this life, the religious truths reveal to deliver us from sin remain strong in the Church, including those of Holy Matrimony, which reflect our union with Christ.
Of course, the Early Church Fathers had particularly a lot to say about the permanence of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, implicitly supporting and defending the permanence of Christ’s marriage to the Church.
What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery
Hermas
The Shepherd 4:1:6 (A.D. 80)
In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: ‘If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.’ And, ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.’ According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts
Justin Martyr
First Apology 15 (A.D. 151)
That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality.’ And it regards as adultery the marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive. ‘Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery,’ it says; for ‘if anyone divorce his wife, he debauches her’; that is, he compels her to commit adultery. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband"
Clement of Alexandria
Miscellanies 2:23:145:3 (A.D. 208)
Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her
Origen
Commentaries on Matthew 14:24 (A.D. 248)
As we see from the Fathers of the Church, for the Early Christians a so-called “divorce” and “remarriage” was equivalent to adultery. Today it still is. Yet, through much reflection on the true nature of a “sacramental marriage,” and what must go into one in order to consider it “valid” in the first place, in Her pastoral concern the Church has come to see the invalidity of many marriages. This has resulted in the ability to pronounce certain marriages “null” whereby parties seek an “annulment” because of a substantial “defect” in the marriage.[78] Thus an annulment is not a “Catholic divorce” as is the misconception of many non-Catholics. In fact, quite the contrary sense is true. In her great reverence for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony the Church has developed pronouncements of nullity in respect for the dignity of what a real marriage is.
THE SACRAMENTS OF HEALING
Confession and Penance for Reconciliation to God
On the top of the list of issues that Evangelicals and others hold against the Catholic Church is that of confessing one’s sins to a priest. In fact, it takes a lot of humility to be able to expose the dark side of oneself to other. A root problem underlying the Protestant issue of confession, of course, is the false assumption that there is no ministerial priesthood. Underlying this problem is the greater root problem of Protestant ecclesiology or “theology of the Church”. More on that in the following section. Generally speaking, however, Protestant theologians emphasis the “common priesthood of all believers”, a point of doctrine that the Catholic Church has already established. Yet, in Catholic theology, as is often the case, there is a deeper understanding of those truths or offices that were “thrown out” by Protestants during their Revolt against The Church.
Sin is not only an offence against God, but is also an offence against humanity. For example, Adam’s sin not only affected his covenant relationship with God and thus resulted in his banishment and ultimate death, his sin also affected the rest of humanity by our banishment and ultimate deaths – “Original Sin”. As a covenant people The Church is the “family of God”[79] as it is made up of those who reconciled to God (see Romans 5:10). Catholic ecclesiology recognizes The Church as the minister of God’s grace through the Great Commission Christ called His Apostles to undertake. The ministerial priesthood, within Christ’s Melchizedekian priesthood, is the ordinary administer of the sacraments of grace within the New Covenant. In order to receive that grace initial grace of reconciliation through baptism one must approach The Church’s “representatives” who are the priests (namely the bishops). Those who sin after baptism acquire a greater chastisement by God because they are supposed to “know better”, as they add to Christ’s suffering for the sins of the world. Herein there is the danger of falling away completely due to the embarrassment of one’s sins (see Hebrews 6:6). Like Adam’s sin affecting humanity, so also a Christian’s sin affects the whole of The Church, as we are all mystically united to Christ as “one body” (see 1 Corinthians 12:12). Thus Saint Paul Church of God
Yet, The Church does not lose hope for the reconciliation of anyone to God and His covenant family. Saint Paul
Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. …On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure
The Didache, 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light
The Letter of Barnabas, 19 (A.D. 74)
For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ … For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop
Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Philadelphians, 3, 8 (A.D. 110)
[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. …Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses
Irenaeus
Against Heresies, 1:22 (A.D. 189)
[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness
Tertullian
Repentance, 10:1 (A.D. 203)[80]
Tertullian was clearly and notoriously sarcastic, as though one’s modesty were equivalent to one’s eternal salvation. Yet, he clearly calls attention to the emotional and psychological foundations as to why many Christians fail to confess their sins. It is “an exposure of themselves” before other conscious people that they become afraid of the rightful judgment of sin. The problem here is the failure to appreciate God’s loving forgiveness – His mercy. The fear ultimately is that one’s sins might “get out”. The reality is that the sinner’s sin has already “gotten out” by the very fact that it has manifested itself in some way. Furthermore, the greater reality is that God is ever merciful, and that His loving Church is conscious of both the universal affect of sin as well as the privacy of sin. Thus we find that the idea of the “confidentiality of the confessional” predates the “client confidentiality” of modern secular systems. Even thought one Christian’s sins may have a negative effect on the whole Church there remains the acknowledgement that God grants His forgiveness to those who are truly sorrowful and therefore there may be a rejoining to the body of Christ.
Preparing for the “Day of the Lord” in the Anointing of the Sick
Traditionally the Anointing of the Sick, also referred to as Extreme Unction, has been reserved for those of whom the possibility of death is apparent, but especially for those in the process of passing on. The second category of people would thus be receiving the “final anointing.” The obvious reason for such limitations is that there is no real need to anoint someone who is sick who will get well naturally. There is no need to anoint someone with a cold or the flu. On the other hand, if someone has caught a severe case of pneumonia or tuberculosis one may want to take the Apostle James’s advice:
Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. James 5:14-15
Again, a sacrament is a ritual action that has real effects on the person receiving it, whether it has spiritual or physical manifestations. For the Jews, no one could forgive sins but God. For the Church, Christ gave Her the ministry to forgive sins. With James’s statement we see the sacramental formula. Call in the priests, pray and anoint the sick in the name of the Lord, due to the effectiveness of prayer the person will be restored – whether immediately (a miracle) or ultimately (at the Resurrection of the Death), it depends on God’s will – and sins will be forgiven.
The power to heal and forgive sins clearly finds their source in Jesus Christ – the Head of the Church. The Apostles and later the bishops and priests were, as with all sacraments, the ministers of Christ’s power. Jesus had evidenced this through many miracles of His own. And so the gospels record that Jesus gave the Apostles a share in His power of demonic forces as well as the gift of healing through anointing.
And [Jesus] summoned the twelve (Apostles) and began to send them out in pairs, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits … They went out and preached that men should repent. And they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil many sick people and healing them. (Mark 6:7, 12-13)
Today there are still exorcisms and the anointing of those who are sick. The prayer “offered in faith” is an essential element, as it casts the sick person into the trust of God.
The Mass and the Holy Eucharist as a “Sacrifice”
The Mass is clearly the center of Catholic life and worship. And yet, there is a cloud of misconceptions that surround what may seem like a “magical” superstition or even a “sacrilegious” ceremony. The most common misconception of the Catholic Mass, and the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy for that matter, is that Jesus Christ is “re-crucified” in order to make present His body and blood from the bread and wine. This, of course, is not the case. What is the Traditional Christian belief is that the one-time sacrifice of the Cross is mysteriously “made present” or “re-presented” for Christians in every age. The scriptural roots for this belief are many, in the Old Testament, but especially the New Testament.
The Scripture verse that is most often used in attempt to undermine the Catholic belief in the making present Christ’s sacrifice is from the Book of Hebrews: “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. … but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God … Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.” (v. 10:10, 12, 18). The problem with attempting to use this passage against the Catholic Church is twofold: one, the Church also believes this passage of Scripture to be true;[81] two, is that the context of Hebrews, chapter 10, has nothing to do with the New Testament teaching on the Eucharist. This passage is focused on the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice in contrast to the ineffective animal sacrifices. Granted, the Eucharist is related to the Sacrifice of the Cross, but this passage is not a direct “contradiction” of what the Early Church
The clearest scriptural evidence for this comes from the Last Supper accounts in connection with the Eucharistic teaching in the Gospel of John, chapter 6.
John 6
Exodus 25:30
Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]
The Didache, 14 (A.D. 70)
Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release
Pope Clement I
Letter to the Corinthians, 44:4–5 (A.D. 80)
Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God
Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Philadelphians, 4 (A.D. 110)
God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist
Justin Martyr
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 41 (A.D. 155)
He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles"
Irenaeus
Against Heresies, 4:17:5 (A.D. 189)
A looming question for deep thinkers is, if all God had to do was to forgive people their sins, then why did He have to do it by having Jesus crucified? This is a much more challenging question for Evangelical theology than it is for Catholic theology.
For the Eucharist of Christ’s Presence is truly a transcendent gift to The Church.
Notes
[1] Macauley Jackson, Samuel and Gilmore, George William. (eds.) “Martin Luther”, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, New York, London, Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1908–1914; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1951), 72.
[2] See Kelly, J.N.D. The Oxford Oxford U. Press, Oxford , England
[3] See Shelly, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. 1995, Word Publishing, Dallas , TX
[4] Ignatius of Antioch San Francisco
[5] Crocker, H.W. III. Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church – A 2000 Year History. 2001, Prima Publishing, Roseville
[6] Crocker, pg. 42. Crocker’s quote of Tertullian comes from Will Durant, Caesar and Christ: A History of Roman Civilization and of Christianity from their Beginnings to A.D. 325, (MJF Books, 1971), pg. 613.
[7] Belloc, Hilaire. How the Reformation Happened. Reprinted 1992, Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford , IL
[8] Sullivan, Bruce. Christ in His Fullness. 2007, Coming Home Resources, Zanesville
[9] Ibid, 49-50.
[10] Third Nephi 11:29.
[11] Bennett, Isaiah. Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe. 2001, Catholic Answers, San Diego
[12] The story of the “Nephites” comes from Joseph Smith’s “Book of Mormon”, a collection of writings he dictated to his associates Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery. Smith’s stories came to him by looking into a hat and reading to them a “translation” of “golden plates” that spoke of these other peoples.
Of the “three witnesses” and later “eight witnesses” to have allegedly come in contact with the golden plates that Joseph Smith is said to have discovered, over half (6) had been excommunicated (2 came back), three were family members (father and two brothers), and two died early on. When later interviewed about the so-called golden plates Martin Harris admitted to never having seen them except “by the eyes of faith”.
Not only is there no archeological evidence that there was a Nephite colony having existed in the Americas
The four following evaluations are the major areas of concern concerning historical and scientific evidence for the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s claims:
1. There is a lack of connection between the locations described in the Book of Mormon and American archaeological sites.
2. There are references to animals, plants, metals and technologies in the Book or Mormon that did not exist in pre-Columbian America, including asses, cattle, milk, horses, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, barley, figs, grapes, silk, steel, bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, copper, iron, mining ore, plows, swords, scimitars, and chariots.
3. There is a lack of linguistic connection between Native American language or language family and any Near Eastern language or language family.
4. There is no DNA evidence linking any Native American group to the ancient Near East.
[13] “Are Catholics Allowed to Read the Bible?” This Rock, volume 8, Number 11, November 1997.
[14] Bréhier, Louis. "Crusades." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York
[15] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2264.
[16] The Catechism, #2265.
[17] See Gaudium et Spes, the Second Vatican Council’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Austin Flannery edition of the Vatican Council II documents, 79 § 4.
[18] The Catechism, #2309, emphasis theirs.
[19] BrĂ©hier, “Crusades”, The Catholic Encyclopedia online.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Blötzer, Joseph. “Inquisition.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York
[22] Iblid.
[23] As a movement Protestantism tends to be “anti-Catholic” by its own sense of the judgment of its founders who broke from the Church, as they judged the Church to be corrupt (when really it was individuals who were corrupt).
[24] Even though the Catholic Church promotes the use of rational thought in matters of Divine Revelation and advancing society, as a distinct philosophy “Rationalism” tends to be anti-Catholic as it promotes that truth can only be obtained from human reason.
[25] Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, pg. 253.
[26] Blötzer, “Inquisition”, The Catholic Encyclopedia online. All emphases mine.
[27] Ibid. Non-Latin emphasis mine.
[28] See Crocker, Triumph, pgs. 176, 227.
[29] Ibid.
[30] See The Catechism, #2284-2287; Matthew 18:6.
[31] See Chapter 3 under “The Sacraments are Historical, Scriptural, and Effective” in the section on “Commissioned to Preach and Govern through Holy Orders”.
[32] Here the discussion of Christ’s nature being free from sin (Original Sin) bears implications on Mary’s having been given the grace of an “immaculate conception” so that she may be a pure host for the Christ as she gives Him of her humanity. More on this later.
[33] Newman, John Henry Cardinal. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. 1960, Image Books. Pg. 35.
[34] Ibid., pg. 137.
[35] Ibid., pg. 138.
[36] For example, Genesis 1 is not a scientific explanation of Creation. One does NOT need to believe that Creation is only several thousand years old, which contradicts scientific discovery, in order to be a devout, God believing, God fearing Christian. The error of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is a literal interpretation of Genesis, chapter one. Rather, according to the literary form of these Scriptures, we discover it is a structured acrostic poem written to convey core truths: God is all powerful; God created out of nothing (ex nihilo); God created with purpose; for God creation was effortless.
[37] “straw”.
[38] A Christology that views the human nature of Christ as overpowered by His divine nature, or that Christ had a human nature but it was unlike the rest of humanity.
[39] Newman, Development of Christian Doctrine, pg. 200.
[40] Vatican II, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), 3:12. Emphases mine.
[41] Newman, Development of Christian Doctrine, pgs. 46-47.
[42] Ibid., pg. 139.
[43] Ibid., pg. 145.
[44] Ibid., pg. 159.
[45] Ibid., pg. 160-161.
[46] Ibid., pg. 163-164.
[47] The Catechism, #112-114.
[48] The Catechism, #116-117.
[49] For a good online source of passages and commentary see http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html#top.
[50] Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians.” 1988, Ignatius Press, San Francisco
[51] See 2 Samuel 6:1-10 and the story of Uzzah. It was forbidden to come in direct contact with the Arc of the Lord without punishment of death, but in a situation while attempting to transport the Arc, for apparent concern of it falling off the cart Uzzah grabs hold of it to stop it and the Lord strikes him down on the spot. Even King David was upset at the Lord’s wrath upon Uzzah, yet the moral of the story remains: the Arc of the Lord can take care of itself, as it is under the protection of God, as illustrated in 1 Samuel 5, when the Philistines had captured the Arc and the Lord struck the people with hemorrhoids!
[52] But don’t Christians both profess to be sinners while also acknowledging the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? This question is best answered by the Catholic teaching concerning Baptism; that it actually washes away the stain of Original Sin as the ritual signifies. It is because of the grace of “baptism that now saves” (1 Peter 3:21; see also Rom. 6:4), so that people may “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). It is the grace given by the “ordinary means” (the divinely established manner) of Baptism, that after our fallen nature is “justified” or brought into a right relationship with God. For the adult this is made possible by intellectual self-consent. For the infant this is made possible by parental consent. For as the sacrament of Baptism is “efficacious”, that is “effective”, it is always good.
[53] The author doubts that the ancients kept record of how long (see the details in Genesis 5) each of his successors lived, but believes the ages of the men listed in Genesis 5 to be symbolic climaxing with Lamech, who is said to have lived 777 years, the “perfect” number. Yet, while NOT rejecting the longer lifespan of the ancients, the traditional understanding is that it was the new and growing influence of disease that weakened humanity and led to the lessening of the lifespan.
[54] This is a remarkable statement in Genesis 3:15 because it out of the ordinary language, as “seed” or offspring is understood to be the work of males with their wives. Here paternity or fatherhood is left out. So this verse could also subtly imply virginity, considering the whole of Scripture.
[55] Romeo and Juliet: Act 3, Scene 1.
[56] For a larger treatment of the Early Church Fathers on the sacraments and other early Christian teachings see John R. Willis, The Teachings of the Church Fathers, Ignatius Press, 2002.
[57] Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon #7650.
[58] This teaching and reality as flies in the face of the Oriental theory of reincarnation of Hinduism and Buddhism, which, similar to Gnosticism, these religions tend to despise the sufferings of this life and therefore perceive the created world as an “illusion”.
[59] See The Catechism, #1127, 1131.
[60] Baptism does not necessarily “replace” circumcision, as some interpret this verse, which the context does not suggest, but baptism is “likened” to circumcision. Nonetheless, from Paul’s expression theologians can still make the same deduction: that baptism is an effective mark of God given to either adult converts or the children they are in charge of, just as it was the Jewish parents who had their children “marked” as a sign of their covenant.
[61] Patristic citations retrieved at http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp.
[62] http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp
[63] Patristic citations retrieved at http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptismal_Grace.asp, http://www.catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp, http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp,
[64] The Catechism, #1279.
[65] Patristic citations retrieved at http://www.catholic.com/library/Confirmation.asp.
[66] The Catechism, #1316-1317.
[67] Some “high church” Anglicans believe in the Catholic interpretation of the Real Presence of Christ. Then again, they believe themselves to be of the “catholic” faith.
[68] See discussions on “The Fourth Cup” and “Growth by Oath: The Seven Sacraments” produced by Saint Joseph Communications. Visit www.saintjoe.com or call 1-800-526-2151. Scott Hahn’s doctoral studies were in covenant theology.
[69] The Catechism, #611, and citing John 17:19; cf. Council of Trent : DS 1752; 1764.
[70] The Catechism, #1211, and citing Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica III, 65, 1.
[71] Patristic citations retrieved at http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp.
[72] Justin S. Steele, Praying Made Me Catholic: With the Biblical and Historical Reasons I Must Remain Catholic, CHResources, 2009. Citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1374
[73] This is the purest form of how new bishops were selected. Of course, there has been some who have received the office of bishop through scandalous ways, such as a gift, bribe, or having been sold (the sin of “simony”)
[74] Here the wording is to be “handed over to Satan” or “delivered…to Satan”, i.e., to be separate from The Church and therefore God’s graces back into the control of the Ruler of the World. Such a separation would (ideally) cause one to recognize the difference between God’s kingdom and Satan’s. The term “excommunication” (to remove from communion/communication) came to be used as a way to explain this biblical principle. The point, of course, is that even though the term is not biblical the principle/practice is.
[75] The more modern word “priest” is a contraction (shortened version) of the word “presbyter”.
[76] Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae (On the Nullity of Anglican Orders).
[77] Ephesians 5:31; Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5.
[78] Examples that would nullify a “marriage” are the lack of maturity to marry (not understanding or appreciating the seriousness gravity of marriage), lack of freedom to marry (being forced or coerced to marry someone not loved), pretending consent (saying yes, even though not wanting to), and hiding defect to gain consent (not old enough/unwilling to be open to having children, etc).
[79] Vatican II, Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), 28:5.
[80] Patristic citations retrieved at http://www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp.
[81] See CCC #614 and #2824.
