Apostolic Succession

Before we begin on the issue of apostolic succession, we first must discuss the nature of the priesthood. Some Christian churches do not believe in any sort of ordination. They feel that because of the priesthood of all believers, any member of the church may preach and lead their assembly. Others do practice a laying on of hands for ordination, seeing it as a symbolic act, similar to baptism.

For Catholics, ordination is a sacrament. Through ordination, a man becomes a priest, his priesthood indelibly imprinted on his soul, forever. Although many Christians feel that the priesthood ended with Christ, Catholics see the Levitical priesthood as a prefiguring of the ordained ministry of the New Covenant. As the Catholic Catechism explains:

1544 Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

1545 The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood: "Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers."

This is important to note in the face of the accusation that Catholic priests are usurping the place Christ, who is our only true priest.

The Catholic Church does recognize the priesthood of all believers, or baptismal priesthood. The role of the ordained priesthood is to serve the rest of us, through dispensing the sacraments.

1120 The ordained ministry or ministerial priesthood is at the service of the baptismal priesthood. The ordained priesthood guarantees that it really is Christ who acts in the sacraments through the Holy Spirit for the Church. The saving mission entrusted by the Father to his incarnate Son was committed to the apostles and through them to their successors: they receive the Spirit of Jesus to act in his name and in his person. The ordained minister is the sacramental bond that ties the liturgical action to what the apostles said and did and, through them, to the words and actions of Christ, the source and foundation of the sacraments.

But how does the ordained priesthood have the authority to marry people, to forgive sins, etc? They were given this authority by Jesus, as it was passed down through the apostles.


And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind. Num 16:28

God gives Moses the authority to perform works on his behalf.

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. John 5:30

In the same way, Jesus, as a man, acts under the authority of the Father.

And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me Luke 22:29
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. Luke 9:1

Jesus gives this authority to his disciples.

And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." John 20:22

God imparted life to Adam through breathing on him. Therefore, this breathing was not just a symbol, but a sacrament. An outward sign of an inward grace which they received. This is something which they knew would be passed on to those who would come after them.

Acts 1:20-26 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

As this article from This Rock explains, "Peter considers Judas’s betrayal as a fulfillment of Old Testament prediction. And he also quotes from the Greek Septuagint translation of Psalm 109:8 (Psalm 108:8 in the Septuagint numbering) to show that filling the office was foreseen in Scripture. Verse 20 reads, "His office let another take." The word translated "office" is episkope, which in New Testament language means "episcopal office" (see 1 Tim. 3:1)."

Acts 9:7 shows that even Paul was ordained before he begins his ministry. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Paul sees this ministry being passed down through the generations, "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2).

So, the apostles received this authority from Jesus, which they passed down to their successors, which they passed down through the generations, and which we still recognize today, as do a few other churches. The Catechism explains it in this way:

1562 "Christ, whom the Father hallowed and sent into the world, has, through his apostles, made their successors, the bishops namely, sharers in his consecration and mission; and these, in their turn, duly entrusted in varying degrees various members of the Church with the office of their ministry." "The function of the bishops' ministry was handed over in a subordinate degree to priests so that they might be appointed in the order of the priesthood and be co-workers of the episcopal order for the proper fulfillment of the apostolic mission that had been entrusted to it by Christ."

1563 "Because it is joined with the episcopal order the office of priests shares in the authority by which Christ himself builds up and sanctifies and rules his Body. Hence the priesthood of priests, while presupposing the sacraments of initiation, is nevertheless conferred by its own particular sacrament. Through that sacrament priests by the anointing of the Holy Spirit are signed with a special character and so are configured to Christ the priest in such a way that they are able to act in the person of Christ the head."

1564 "Whilst not having the supreme degree of the pontifical office, and notwithstanding the fact that they depend on the bishops in the exercise of their own proper power, the priests are for all that associated with them by reason of their sacerdotal dignity; and in virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, after the image of Christ, the supreme and eternal priest, they are consecrated in order to preach the Gospel and shepherd the faithful as well as to celebrate divine worship as true priests of the New Testament."

1565 Through the sacrament of Holy Orders priests share in the universal dimensions of the mission that Christ entrusted to the apostles. The spiritual gift they have received in ordination prepares them, not for a limited and restricted mission, "but for the fullest, in fact the universal mission of salvation 'to the end of the earth," "prepared in spirit to preach the Gospel everywhere."

1566 "It is in the Eucharistic cult or in the Eucharistic assembly of the faithful (synaxis) that they exercise in a supreme degree their sacred office; there, acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming his mystery, they unite the votive offerings of the faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the sacrifice of the Mass they make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord, the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father." From this unique sacrifice their whole priestly ministry draws its strength.

1567 "The priests, prudent cooperators of the episcopal college and its support and instrument, called to the service of the People of God, constitute, together with their bishop, a unique sacerdotal college (presbyterium) dedicated, it is, true to a variety of distinct duties. In each local assembly of the faithful they represent, in a certain sense, the bishop, with whom they are associated in all trust and generosity; in part they take upon themselves his duties and solicitude and in their daily toils discharge them." priests can exercise their ministry only in dependence on the bishop and in communion with him. The promise of obedience they make to the bishop at the moment of ordination and the kiss of peace from him at the end of the ordination liturgy mean that the bishop considers them his co-workers, his sons, his brothers and his friends, and that they in return owe him love and obedience.

1568 "All priests, who are constituted in the order of priesthood by the sacrament of Order, are bound together by an intimate sacramental brotherhood, but in a special way they form one priestly body in the diocese to which they are attached under their own bishop. . . ." The unity of the presbyterium finds liturgical expression in the custom of the presbyters' imposing hands, after the bishop, during the rite of ordination.

Our records of the early church attest to their belief in apostolic succession.

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier.... Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:4). A.D. 189]

"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:26:2).

"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (Tertullian Demurrer Against the Heretics 32 [A.D. 200].

Separated Brethern Versus Anathematized

Turretinfan wrote:

"Separated brethren" sounds like the people are still going to heaven - "Anathema" has a different sound. The former is the more ecumenical and inclusive post-Vatican-II approach, whereas the latter is the more austere approach the preceded it. Or so it appears.

Is it your position that either Trent didn't mean to condemn folks to hell by using the word "anathema" or that "separated brethren" doesn't mean that we are able to be saved without the removal of that separation?

Well, "sounding like" can sometimes lead one astray. "C0-Mediatrix" sounds like it means Mary is equal to Jesus, whereas the title does not actually have that meaning.

The Council of Trent took place at a time when the Reformation was fresh, and not considered an established fact. The council reformed areas in the Church, agreeing that reform was needed. In other areas, it held the line. The anathemas drew attention to how serious this was, and what was at stake. You were not in communion with the Church, and in danger of hell, if you did not repent. This was a time when going to war to solve a theological issue made perfect sense.

At the time in which Vatican II took place, the Reformation is now an established fact. There are people who left the Catholic Church generations ago, and have no sense of having protested against it. Many of them are in denominations that are off-shoots of off-shoots, for example, the Methodists descend from the Anglicans.

We are no longer living in the time where a king will wait barefoot in the snow for three days in order to have his excommunication lifted. Anathemas, and excommunications of those who are already outside the Church will only push people away, not draw them in. Therefore, the change in vocabulary reflects that.

I do not see that the actual Church doctrine has changed. From the Catechism:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."³²⁰

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"³²¹

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."³²² Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."³²³ With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

Dominus Iesus was written after the compilation of the Catechism, and states this more clearly:

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),⁴⁷ which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).⁴⁸ And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.⁴⁹ This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).⁵⁰

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.⁵¹ Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.⁵²

So, Christ established only one Church. We cannot all be lumped together as a single Christian entity under the heading of a spiritual Church of Christ.

Then, a little further down:

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.⁵⁸ The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.⁵⁹ Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.⁶⁰

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,⁶¹ are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.⁶² Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.⁶³

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.⁶⁴ In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.⁶⁵ “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.⁶⁶

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.⁶⁷

What I understand this to be saying, and again, I want to caution that I am no theologian, this is just my personal understanding, is that you still need to be a part of the Catholic Church in order to attain salvation. Our separated brethren are still joined to the Catholic Church because the efficacy of their baptism is derived from the Catholic Church, in some way.

The anathemas of Trent were warning a group of people who were leaving the Church that they were in danger of hell by separating themselves from the fullness of Truth. The separated brethren of Vatican II is reminding people who see themselves as having never been a part of the Catholic Church, that they are, in a sense, joined in communion with the Church, and hopes that they will draw ever nearer.

I feel that asking "Can you be saved without joining the Catholic Church" is sort like asking "Can you be saved and never read the Bible?" Sure, you can, but you're missing out on a lot.

Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

I have a non-sleeping teething baby here, so most of this will be pasted from previous posts, but we'll see what I can get done in five minutes . . .

A new post by Candy today with some new material, but mostly several points she has written about previously all in one very long article.

We are called to follow Jesus. Jesus was baptized, and He tells us that we should be baptized as well. If a saved person doesn't get a chance to get baptized before death, that is no problem, because we are saved through faith in Christ, not through water baptism:

Catholics call this "baptism by desire."

CCC 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." -Luke 23:39-43

Two thieves were hung on crosses by Jesus. One did not believe on him, but the other chose to have a saving faith in Christ before his death. This thief was not able to jump off of the cross and get baptized before his death, yet Jesus affirms that he is saved, when he says that he is going to paradise.

No, baptism isn't required for salvation, but in normal circumstances, it should follow it:

Jesus has the power to tell someone that he will enter paradise, but that does not mean that it is not necessary. Baptism is the normal means ordained by Jesus.

From John 3 Birth versus Baptism:

The first thing that Jesus does after speaking with Nicodemus is to begin baptizing in 3:22.

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women

Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts: 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The eunuch in Acts 8 needs to be baptized after believing in Jesus. Paul, who was made an apostle by Jesus Himself, was baptized immediately in Acts 9:18.

In Matt 28:19 Jesus commands "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" linking teaching and baptism.

Also, Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Peter was following Jesus' command in Mark 16: 16 where He says "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Why would Jesus say in John 3 that we should be born and believe, when He says everywhere else that we should be baptized and believe? Clearly, when unless you take the verse out of context of other verses, you should conclude that by "born of water" Jesus meant baptism.

You really can't get more clear than 1 Peter 3:21, which states "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

For a more in depth study of baptism in Scripture, I suggest (as always!) reading through the Scripture Catholic site.

We can also look to see how the early Christians interpreted these verses. Although many fundamentalists feel that the early Church fell into error, most people feel that this didn't occur until after the Council of Nicea in 325. All of the early Church Fathers interpret John 3:5 as referring to water baptism. You can read a sample of their words here.

In Candy's article on the Trinity, she pointed to Cyprian of Carthage as support for her point. On the point of baptism he wrote "[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).

Catholic Catechism paragraph 1257:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" -1 Peter 3:20-21

Noah and his family saved by water? This is only possible if they were in the ark first - else they would have died. Just as baptism only saves us, if we get on the ark first. That ark is our conduit to salvation. Without the protection of the ark, the water will not save us.

We are saved through faith, and we get baptized to show that faith, and that we are being obedient to Christ. If Noah and his family got into the ark, but it never rained, and there was no flood, then did the ark save them? No, it was just an empty shell. Just as faith without works (obedience to God) is dead.

Your baptism doesn't count, unless it occurs after you've gotten onto the ark - after you've gotten saved. Then, you are saved through faith which is a living faith, and that is what drove you to get baptized. Faith without works is dead, but works without faith is as well.

This is a bit more developed than her previous comments on that verse.

Catholics interpret the ark as prefiguring the Church. I'd like to write more on this, but again, I can't at the moment.

Jesus is God, and God wrote the Bible. We are to do what the Bible instructs us to. The Bible instructs us to get baptized after salvation. This, of course means that infant baptism doesn't count as a biblical baptism - it's just getting a baby wet.

We wrote about infant baptism here and here.

Furthermore, baptism is full immersion, not a sprinkling on the head. Read of all of the baptisms in the Bible, and they involved immersion. Look at the Greek word for baptism, and it literally means "to immerse."

Baptism is full immersion, and only "counts" if it is after salvation - else it's just a person getting wet.

What I really want to know is if baptism is just a symbol and doesn't mean anything, then why does it matter if it is full immersion or not? Odd that the churches which believe baptism is a sacrament accept almost any baptism as valid, while those who believe that baptism doesn't mean anything are the ones who often require re-baptism.

You see, there are thousands upon thousands of people walking around, claiming to be Christians, but their life doesn't reflect their Christianity at all. They have a dead faith.

We are called to walk in the spirit, as per such Scriptures as Galatians 5, Romans 8, etc.

When you walk in the spirit, you automatically show your faith by your works.

If the works are produced automatically, then what about free will? What role does grace play in all of this? Candy rarely writes about grace.

A previous post on Candy's "automatic fruit producing" theology.

Born again, again

Candy writes of John 3:1-21:

Notice that you must be born of the water and of the Spirit. Jesus makes it clear that born of the water means physically born - the waters being the amniotic fluid in the womb. One must be physically born, before they can be born again. Born of the Spirit is being Born Again. There is no mention of baptism in the above scripture, for one isn't to get baptised before getting saved, only after, in obedience to Christ, but not for salvation. Since being born again is not baptism, it must be something else.

We discussed this when studying the 3rd chapter of St. John's gospel. Please read the full article, but here is the Cliff Notes version.

I think that if Candy takes such a literal interpretation of this verse, then she must rule out the possibility of salvation for those who are never physically born, i.e., those who are miscarried or aborted. Jesus does put being born of water as one of the two conditions for entering the kingdom of God.

It can also be a danger to put a significance on the order in which something is placed in scripture. One obvious case would be that Peter's name is always listed first in the lists of the apostles. Would Candy say that this is significant?

This verse supports that baptism and being born in Spirit through belief in Jesus is linked. This is found throughout the entire New Testament.

The first thing that Jesus does after speaking with Nicodemus is to begin baptizing in 3:22.

Why would Jesus say in John 3 that we should be born and believe, when He says everywhere else that we should be baptized and believe? Clearly, when unless you take the verse out of context of other verses, you should conclude that by "born of water" Jesus meant baptism.

You really can't get more clear than 1 Peter 3:21, which states "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

All other religions require one to DO something - rituals, works, sacraments, penance, and acts of self-righteousness. Yet, for the Christian, Jesus paid it ALL. Through Christ's spilt blood, anyone can gain entrance into heaven.

While Catholicism remains unnamed, rituals, works, sacraments, and penance are all code words used by Candy to allude to Catholicism. However, Catholicism does not teach that we are saved by any of these aspects.

CCC #161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

#169: Salvation comes from God alone

#1741: Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free." In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free." The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."

#620: Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

#1427 It is by faith in the Gospel and by Baptism that one renounces evil and gains salvation, that is, the forgiveness of all sins and the gift of new life.

#2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord's words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"- reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.


Accepting, believing, and fully trusting in Christ's free gift of salvation is how one becomes born again - born of the Spirit.

Accepting, believing, and trusting are all verbs, or as they call them in schools now, action words. Candy's religion requires her to DO something, too. It places the burden of salvation on your action of accepting Christ.

I ask again, what role does God's grace play in salvation for Candy?

Infant Baptism Redux

If you were baptized as an infant, please understand that that did not save you. You have to be of an old enough age to understand that Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins. If you didn't understand and believe on this before you were baptized, then your baptism was in truth, nothing more than your getting wet.

I have to second Elena on my appreciation for how repetitive Candy can be. We're three weeks into the homeschooling year at my house, and planning a big painting project this weekend. I'm glad to be able to say that we wrote about infant baptism previously here.

Still waiting for the promised article on where the Bible discusses the age of accountability. I see we have a few born again readers, if you can help me out on this, please leave a comment. I'm very curious about it.

A Eucharistic Dialogue

Julie left a comment on Candy's Biblical Worship post that I decided to try and respond to:

The only church that made me uncomfortable was a Catholic church I visited years ago with a friend of mine who was Catholic. It could have been that I did not understand a lot about that faith, but it seemed off for some reason. (Guess I got use to the singing and praising from my Methodist and Baptist experiences). Her church did not have any of that at all...very methodical and robotic if you asked me. I could not even take communion because I had not completed THEIR requirements though I had been saved for about 4 years at that point. I was still a sinner in their eyes.


Candy DID post my response, and she and I exchanged comments for the next hour or so. I thought it would be a good idea to save the exchange here, since Candy doesn't keep the comments even if she archives a post.


I wrote:

Julie, I am truly sorry that your friend either has such a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church's theology on this matter, or, as is more likely, that she explained it so poorly.

The Catholic Church does accept non-Catholics as Christians, and also accepts the baptism of other churches, as long as it was a Trinitarian baptism.

As Freddy said, Communion at Catholic Churches is closed to non-Catholics, because by taking communion you are saying that you believe and accept the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation, that the bread and wine are changed into the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

There is Biblical support for this:

1 Cor 10:16:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1 Cor. 11:27-29:
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

There are other churches besides the Catholic Church which practice closed communion. Candy has mentioned not being able to partake of the Lord's Supper at a church she regularly attended.


Candy replied:

Kelly, neither of those scriptures tell us to eat and drink Jesus literally. This is no more literal than when Jesus says that if we accept Him, then living waters will come forth from our bellies.

I still don't have water springing out of my belly, and I have never seen anyone who does. Have you?

Both scriptures are refering back to the Last Supper, where Jesus told us to partake of Communion in rememberance of Him, in remembering that his body was broken for us.

Eating and drinking Jesus isn't literal. It means that He is your All in All.


My response:

How do you sin against a symbol? Sinning against connotes blasphemy, as in, failing to recognize the presence of God.

I see nothing in these verses which indicates they should be taken in a spiritual manner. When discussing John 6, you said that there are key words, which indicate that verses are to be taken spiritually rather than literally.

However, I understand that we don't agree on this, and I can respect that.
My point in posting the verses was simply to explain the Catholic teaching to Julie, since she felt hurt and confused by her experience.


Candy said:

Kelly, how ~do~ you sin against a symbol? I certainly don't know either. I don't think it's possible.

Communion isn't a symbol. It's the breaking of bread among fellow believers in rememberance of Christ, just as Christ and His disciples did at the Last Supper. Certainly Jesus wasn't literally eating and drinking Himself.

Are we supposed to believe that with the exception of the Last Supper, communion is supposed to be literal?

BTW Kelly, thank you for your respectful comments. It's nice to see someone arguing the issue, instead of attacking the person.


I wrote:

Communion isn't a symbol. It's the breaking of bread among fellow believers in rememberance of Christ, just as Christ and His disciples did at the Last Supper.

I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding what you mean here. Are you saying that when you celebrate the Lord's Supper, it is to remember the Last Supper, and has no symbolism to the body of Christ, who was broken for us on the cross?

1 Cor. 11:27 says "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."

How is celebrating the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner sinning against the body of the Lord, if it is just a symbol. As I said, I don't think you can sin against a symbol.

If the Lord's Supper is just a commemoration of the Last Supper, then I'm not sure how the body and blood of the Lord would be relevant at all, or why Paul would bring them up.

And I appreciate that you have published my comments.

I often used to try and leave respectful comments, but they were not published. I assumed they fell under "having incorrect religious teachings that could lead new Christians astray."

So, I am happy that you are letting me post at the moment, for whatever the reason.


Candy explained:

This is why Jesus told us in John chapter 6 that He was speaking in the Spirit. It is not always easy to understand in the flesh, just as it's hard for unbelievers to understand how to get saved, until they actually do.

Jesus and His disciples broke bread and drank wine at the last supper. When Christians partake of Communion, they are breaking bread and drinking wine/grape juice just as Jesus and His disciples do. We do this in rememberance, as Jesus commands us to do. It really has nothing to do with John 6, where Jesus was telling us that his body is the bread of life, broken on the cross for us. His blood is the wine that spilt forth to cleans our sins. However, that was not communion, it was a spiritual picture.

Jesus often used these types of strong mental pictures, to weed out the false followers from the true ones. Jesus knew who was true, and who wasn't but He did these things to reveal this to others, and to reveal people own hearts to themselves. There is a specific Greek term for this, but I can't remember it. Sorry. :-(

Anyhow, these types of strong descriptions from Jesus are part of the reason why He is called a "stumbling stone." Even some of His discliples stumbled at some of the things He said.

Moving on to the scripture about being unworthy of partaking of Communion, earlier in that chapter, it gives us a list of who is unworthy:

- partaking because of physical hunger

- partaking while drunk

- not partaking in rememberance of Jesus

These are some of the reasons given in verses 17-25 as to why some were/are unworthy to partake of Communion.

Remember, Jesus said "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." - 1 Cor. 11:24b

Obviously it wasn't literally His body, for he partook as well, at the Last Supper.

Kelly, I'm letting your posts come through for two reasons:

1) they are respectful. You haven't once called me "ignorant," a "hater," etc. Nor have you put words into my mouth

2) Even though I believe you are providing incorrect teachings, I have the time to respond to your comments. When I have the time to respond to such comments, then I have no problems publishing them. When I don't have the time, I often save the comment, with the intention of publishing it and responding to it later. However, many times when I've done this, I was then attacked by the comment leavers, because they didn't immediatly see their comment published. At that point, I see no reason to try to reason with them, so neither comment ends up being published.



I appreciate how she implies that my previous comments didn't get posted because I attacked her for not immediately publishing my comment.

At this point, I'm not planning to post anymore comments on this thread. If you notice how much longer Candy's last comment was, I would also need to write a long response to give the Catholic view, and as the entire topic has nothing to do with Candy's actual post, I'm going to let Candy close the discussion. I'm happy that she let me make my points, and hopefully many people read them.

Biblical Worship

Candy's post today deals with her idea of what worship should look like, with some verses pulled from the Bible specifically to support those ideas. Although, she says it more like this:

The Bible says that we Christians are to worship our God - the one, true God.

How are Christians to worship? Does the Bible tell us how? Does the Bible give examples? What does worship in heaven look like? I hope to show you scriptures that answer each of these questions...

Candy feels worship should include the following elements:

As the above scriptures show, worshiping the Lord involves many things. Some are the following:

- The lifting of hands

- Praying

- Blessing the name of the Lord

- Bowing

- The laying on of hands

- Singing praises

- Dancing and leaping

While I think Candy is free to worship as pleases, I am confused as to how she can pull some verses out as proof, while ignoring others. For example, how could she leave out greet each other with a holy kiss (1 Thess 5:26) while putting in David dancing before the altar of the Lord? Do we know that everyone danced before the altar of the Lord, or was that something that only the Lord's anointed king did?

Here are some other elements of Biblical worship:

• Incense should be burned perpetually, throughout the generations. Ex 30:8
• Candlesticks and candles should be used. Ex 31:8
• Vestments should be worn. Ez 3:10
• God find repetitious prayer pleasing. Rev 4:8
• Includes communion of the body and blood of Christ through the bread and the cup. 1 Cor 10:16.
• Wine is used for this communion. 1 Cor 11:20-21
• Christians who are with God in Heaven also participate with us in this worship (Heb. 12:1, Rev 6:9-10, 8:3-4)
  

What about when some churches and Christians "lay hands" on someone for healing, or for agreement in prayer? Is that biblical? Yes it is. At my church (Foursquare) last Sunday, the elders anointed some people with oil, and prayed for healing. Is this in the Bible? YES!

I'm glad Candy recognizes that the sacrament of Annointing of the Sick is Biblical.


Did you know that the Bible has a built in song and praise book? It's called the book of Psalms.

Exactly! When religious communities chant the Liturgy of the Hours, it is a way of praying, without ceasing, in song.

The custom of reciting prayers at certain hours of the day or night goes back to the Jews, from whom Christians have borrowed it. In the Psalms we find expressions like: "I will meditate on thee in the morning"; "I rose at midnight to give praise to thee"; "Evening and morning, and at noon I will speak and declare: and he shall hear my voice"; "Seven times a day I have given praise to thee"; etc. (Cf. "Jewish Encyclopedia", X, 164-171, s. v. "Prayer"). The Apostles observed the Jewish custom of praying at midnight, terce, sext, none (Acts 10:3, 9; 16:25; etc.).

You can see a Carthusian monk praying the Psalms in the night in this clip.




Candy also subtly lets us know that she does not consider a Catholic Mass to be Biblical worship:

There is vain/meaningless worship, in which one is following after the traditions or commandments of men, instead of from God:

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." -Matthew 15:9

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." -Mark 7:7

However, the Bible does distinguish between traditions of men, and traditions which come from God.

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.


Candy once told us exactly how she felt about a Catholic Mass, which she attended (bold mine):

It was so sad and gut wrenching that it almost brought me to tears. I was the only one attending, that I could see, that brought a Bible, and even bothered looking up scriptures. The Bible ignorance in that crowd was astounding me as well. Most of them don't seem to read their Bible, they just follow what 'the church' teaches them. Everyone there looked to me like they were wearing masks with no eyes. :-( I suspect that there might have been more true reverence (as opposed to ritual) in a black mass (however they'd be worshiping the wrong guy, of course).


Candy concludes her article with verses from Revelation, showing Biblical worship in heaven.

Worship in Heaven also includes:

• an altar (Rev 6:9, 8:3, and others)
• the prayers of the saints being offered at the altar in the form of incense (Rev 8:3-4)
• The Lamb standing as if it had been slain (perpetual sacrifice) (Rev 5:1-7)
• Angels repetitiously praying Holy, Holy, Holy (Rev 4:8)

You can read verses which tell of the perpetual sacrifice of the Mass in heaven at the Scripture Catholic website.

You can read a talk by Scott Hahn on the same subject here. Hahn wrote an entire book on the subject, titled The Lamb's Supper. He later did a television series on EWTN based on the book, and you can listen to the audio files here.

Anathemas, Part III

For our next installation of what may become a four part series, I wanted to address what the canons of Trent actually say, and not follow the red herring of the anathemas. As it is beyond the scope of this blog to go over all of the canons, I will stick to the four which Candy found particularly offensive. She uses two each for the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and the validity of the sacraments.

Now, if Candy hadn't gotten distracted by the anathemas, I think she could have made a very good post out of this material. I don't deny that there are differences between Catholic theology, and the theology that Candy follows. Perhaps she could have explained why she believed we are saved by faith alone, and why the sacraments are not necessary instead of saying that Catholics who believe in Jesus are anathema, which just isn't true.


If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON IX

“If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON XII

The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by God's grace alone, through our faith, as is manifested by our works. We do not believe that we are saved by faith alone.

The only time that the words "faith" and "alone" appear together in the Bible are in James 2:14-26, where it is stating that we are NOT saved by faith alone. (Well, apparently not actually in the KJV, which I tend to use here in deference to Candy's preferences.)

James 2:14-26What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

You can read two excellent articles on the Catholic Answers website that deal with this issue.
Not By Faith Alone
Aren't We Saved By Faith Alone?

The Catholic Church DOES affirm the importance of faith:

CCC #161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

#183: "Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16)."


So if the Catholic Church feels faith is so important, why did it condemn salvation by faith alone? Because salvation by faith alone discounts the work of God's grace in our salvation. Are we saved by God's grace, or do we save ourselves by OUR belief, OUR faith, OUR saying the Sinner's Prayer, etc. It is God's grace which prompts our faith, and therefore God deserves all the credit for our salvation, not our declaration of faith.

Grace is something that Candy doesn't really mention much on her blog, and I'm curious as to how she feels God's grace fits into the role of our salvation. Whereas, if you take the time to read the Canons of the Council of Trent, grace shows up time and time again.

Canon 2.
If anyone says that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may be able more easily to live justly and to merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he is able to do both, though with hardship and difficulty, let him be anathema.

Canon 29.
If anyone says that he who has fallen after baptism cannot by the grace of God rise again,[130] or that he can indeed recover again the lost justice but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and Universal Church, instructed by Christ the Lord and His Apostles, has hitherto professed, observed and taught, let him be anathema.

Canon 32.
If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

Further, if you read more than four canons of Trent quoted by Candy, you will see that even at the time the Church was condemning the idea of salvation by faith alone, it took the time to also condemn salvation by works.

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Wow! The very first canon, huh? Must be important.



Okay, let's move on to sacraments.

“If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON I

“If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not in deed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON IV


As far as I am aware, Candy believes that there are two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, but no sacraments. There are other churches besides the Catholic Church which affirm that there are sacraments, and some also affirm that there are seven, while others feel the number is fewer. I think that sacraments, like infant versus believer baptism, is something that mature Christians should be able to agree to disagree about.

What is a sacrament? The short answer which people usually give to that question is "an outward sign of an inward grace." Sacraments are all about grace.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of Christians in general that, whilst God was nowise bound to make use of external ceremonies as symbols of things spiritual and sacred, it has pleased Him to do so, and this is the ordinary and most suitable manner of dealing with men. Writers on the sacraments refer to this as the necessitas convenientiae, the necessity of suitableness. It is not really a necessity, but the most appropriate manner of dealing with creatures that are at the same time spiritual and corporeal.

What does that mean? Because we are corporeal creatures, we deal with the material world. We understand things best through out senses. God dispenses graces through visible, material sacraments, just as our salvation depended on God taking flesh.

A Primer On Catholic Sacraments
The Catholic Catechism on Sacraments

Candy on Infant Baptism

On Candy's most recent post, someone left a comment asking her opinion of infant baptism. (A secret reader here?)

Candy's reply:
There is no place in the Bible, at all, that says we are to baptize babies.

Under the New Testament, baptism is to occur only after a person has accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

A baby is under the age of accountability, and therefore can't choose Christ, meaning that their baptism is just a bath, and nothing more.

I dedicated my firstborn to the Lord, but I never baptized any of my children, as it's meaningless, and not biblical.

All babies who die go to heaven, regardless if they've been baptized or not.

Anyone under the age of accountability, or without the mental capacities to understand the Gospel is saved by default, because they can't have their sins imputed to them, because they don't know it's sin, and the Bible says that if one sins, and didn't know it was sin, then it is not imputed as sin to them.


Now, I can hardly blame Candy for not providing Scripture citations for NOT baptizing babies, because she says it isn't there. I would be curious to hear what her interpretation is of the verses which I provided in my previous article.

However, she provides a whole comprehensive theological view without any reference to Scripture. Yes, she's busy and maybe she didn't have time. I understand that, and as she is pretty independent theologically, I can't just look up an article online explaining her view. That, at least, is one point in favor of Catholicism. If we're busy here, you can find an answer pretty easy.

But returning to my point, I can guarantee you that "age of accountability" isn't found in the Bible anymore than "purgatory." I'm also pretty sure that it doesn't discuss mental capacity. Catholicism is criticized for not relying strictly on Scripture, and for using tradition, but in practice, even people who consider themselves strict "Bible Believers" will use tradition in interpreting the Bible, as Candy does here.

Joy has a good list of common non-Catholic traditions here.

I am also curious as to how this: the Bible says that if one sins, and didn't know it was sin, then it is not imputed as sin to them.

lines up with this:
Many people will fall into religions that worship the counterfeit Mary and Jesus. They will fall into these cults because of their ignorance of the Word of God, or because they are reading the new Bible versions that have been translated from extremely errant manuscripts translated by ignorant or ungodly people.

Candy also wrote at one point that "sincerity will not save you."

If Catholics are unaware that they are worshiping Baal and Semaris, or Dagon the Fish God, if they think they are really Christians, then they don't know they are sinning, so does that mean that their salvation isn't really in danger?

I think this is typical of the sort of double-standard that Candy has for Catholics. When in doubt, they're probably going to hell.

For example, Julie wrote about her husband:

Hi Candy! I have a situation that I am a bit confused on. I am not 100% sure on my DH's salvation but he does attend church with us

Candy replied: Julie, he said he's saved, so that's that. The rest is between he and God. Different Christians are in different walks in their life.

Yet, when Angie, a professed Catholic, claimed to trust in Jesus for her salvation, Candy's response was very different:

Angie, it's nice that you believe in Jesus Christ - whatever that means. I believe in Abraham Lincoln, but that's not getting me into heaven. Also, I already told you that I'm not condemning you, GOD has ALREADY done that, and I gave you scripture which proved it.


I'll keep an eye on the comments to see if any additional information is added, but for now, I'm filing this away as an instance where Candy is relying on tradition to form her interpretation of Scripture.

John 4: Sanctifying grace and infant baptism

Most of the fourth chapter of St. John's gospel deals with the Samaritan woman.

In verse 10, Jesus begins speaking to the Samaritan woman about the living water. Candy interprets the water of life to be the Holy Spirit:

The living water is the Holy Spirit, which enters into each person, when they become a true believer, and this gives them eternal life after their resurrection

The notes in my Navarre Bible, which represent the Catholic view, indicate that the living water is sanctifying grace:

"Everyone knows from experience that water is absolutely necessary for human life; similarly, the grace of Christ is absolutely necessary for supernatural life. The water which can truly quench man's thirst does not come from this or any other well: it is Christ's grace, the "living water" which provides eternal life. . ."

The Catholic Catechism defines sanctifying grace in paragraph #2023:
Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.

This goes to show, once again, that Catholics do not believe we are saved by works, but by God's grace, His sanctifying grace.


For verses 13-14, Candy writes:
Once the living water is received, there is nothing more the person must do. There are no works to add to salvation. There are no rites or initiations, or ceremonies to perform. Once one receives this living water, their salvation is complete. They are saved, not "being saved," as some religions falsely teach.

There are several points to be made in this paragraph. First, is the point that I have made several times before. Candy feels that Catholicism teaches you must "earn" your salvation through "works." But she says that in order to be saved a person must accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Acceptance is an action. Catholics believe we are saved through God's sanctifying grace, not through our actions.

Secondly, Candy says that after you are saved, there are no more works which you must do. Yet, Candy lists in this article quite a long list of actions that a person will perform once they have been saved. She often says that you will know you are saved because you will have a radical change of life, and begin studying the Bible. If you have not performed these works, then you are probably not saved.

Finally, she feels that "are being saved" is a false teaching. The King James Version translates 2 Cor 2:15 and 1 Cor 1:18 as "are saved" while other translations, including Young's Literal Translation uses "are being saved."

It seems we must discount those verses from the KJV point of view, but I can still point you to another verse which point to salvation as a process.

Phil 2:12: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

You can find lots more on the Scripture Catholic website.


On verses 25-26, Candy writes:
There is a heretical teaching going around, by even recognized evangelists, purporting that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. That is a false wind of doctrine. Right here in these verses, Jesus plainly affirms that he is indeed the Messiah. Messias is the Greek form of Messiah.

Fortunately, that heretical belief is not compatible with Catholicism. The Catechism states (look carefully, and you'll see Scripture citations!):

453 The title "Christ" means "Anointed One" (Messiah). Jesus is the Christ, for "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power" (Acts 10:38). He was the one "who is to come" (Lk 7:19), the object of "the hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20).


For verse 34, Candy writes:
God has a job for all Christians to fulfill, and part of that job is doing the Great Commission. The Bible tells us that the Christian's meat is the Bible - the Word of God. See 1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12-15 How do we know the will of the Lord? By partaking of the meat of His Word (reading the Bible daily), by prayer, and by the leading of the Holy Spirit, which indwells every saved Christian.

This is remarkably similar to the notes in my Bible:

Every genuine conversion is necessarily projected towards others, in a desire to have them share in thh joy of encountering Jesus.

"The Apostles, when they were called, left their nets; this woman leaves her water jar and proclaims teh Gospel, calling not just one person but influencing the whole city" (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. on St. John, 33).

Candy does not comment on verse 53, which concerns the curing of a royal official's son:
So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.

This is one of the verses which points us to infant baptism. We have already discussed in John 3, that the Catholic Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. This chapter is a nice chance to give some Scriptural support for infant baptism.

Acts 16:15: And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 18:8: And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Acts 16:33: And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Children are members of a household, therefore they would have been baptized, too. Some contend that this was a later innovation by the Catholic Church, but there are plenty of records showing that infant baptism was the practice of the early church.

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

Additional resources on infant baptism:
Scripture Catholic
Catholic Answers
Can infants be "born again"?

Infant baptism is not unique to the Catholic Church.
Why We Baptize Babies (Lutheran site)
Presbyterian 101: Infant Baptism

Where do they come up with this stuff?

I'm not going to comment too much on this Catholic Church timeline, because we've already touched on several of the topics, and Erika is doing a good job already. But I couldn't resist poking one or two holes in some of the claims.

The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I, 600 years after Christ.

The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (600)

I'm not sure the thought occurred to the authors, but Latin was actually the common language at this time, so quite the opposite of unknown.

The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas. (610)

I'd like to submit some evidence that these distinctively Catholic beliefs were held long before the dates they use.

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

Note: Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks "that there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

That would be an awfully strange thing to remark, seeing as how Clement lived in the 1st century.

Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized.

As milehimama pointed out, this comes from Scripture, though I'm not sure of the date for the book of Kings:

2 Kings 2:19-21
19 The men of the city said to Elisha, "Look, our lord, this town is well situated, as you can see, but the water is bad and the land is unproductive."

20 "Bring me a new bowl," he said, "and put salt in it." So they brought it to him.

21 Then he went out to the spring and threw the salt into it, saying, "This is what the LORD says: 'I have healed this water. Never again will it cause death or make the land unproductive.' " 22 And the water has remained wholesome to this day, according to the word Elisha had spoken.

The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.' And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint.” Basil, To Patrician Caesaria, Epistle 93 (A.D. 372).

"Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, "unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,' you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ's Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken." Pope Leo the Great, Sermon, 91:3 (ante A.D. 461).

The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in th year 1215.

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"For the blood of the grape--that is, the Word--desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord's immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both--of the water and of the Word--is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

"He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:4 (c. A.D. 350).

"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

"Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXIII:7 (c. A.D. 350).

Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III, in the Lateran Council. (1215)

“In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life...On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 4:14,14:1 (c. A.D. 90).

"Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and appropriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins..." Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215).

"In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance...when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).

"For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not vet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands Of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, 'Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.'" Cyprian, To the Clergy, 9 (16):2 (A.D. 250).

Actually, these all seem to come from Loraine Boettner’s book, Roman Catholicism. You can read an article debunking several of these points on the Catholic Answers site:

Item: "Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia . . . [A.D.] 1229."

This looks rather damaging, but Boettner has his history completely wrong. The first thing to note is that the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1559, so a council held in 1229 could hardly have listed a book on it.

The second point is that there apparently has never been any Church council in Valencia, Spain. If there had been one, it could not have taken place in 1229 because Muslim Moors then controlled the city. It is inconceivable that Muslims, who were at war with Spanish Christians, and had been off and on for five centuries, would allow Catholic bishops to hold a council in one of their cities. The Christian armies did not liberate Valencia from Moorish rule until nine years later, 1238. So Valencia is out.

Okay, I'm out of time, so that's all folks!