The Noble Bereans

We're getting a bit long in the comments on the prior post, so I thought I would post a new one up for continuing discussion.

Jennie wrote: The Lord didn't GIVE us the church, we ARE the church. He gave us the Holy Spirit and His word and the Spirit gifts each of us in different ways, including men who can teach and lead others. We all have the Holy Spirit to teach and guide us, however, and have the responsibility to compare teachings to scripture, as those often cited Bereans did.

Barbara replied: Never mind that in the context of Acts 17 the Bereans were obviously comparing Paul's teachings to the Hebrew Scriptures (not the NT). Secondly the Bereans are being held up as nice guys because they are willing to listen to give Paul's story a fair chance instead of rising up against him like those in Thessalonica. Third, no where does it say that to be a like a Berean one must compare teachings to scripture on a regular basis to make sure they are true or that everyone should be like the Bereans to be a Christian.

If anything, the Berean story reflects fair-minded tolerance for listening to another's viewpoint and giving it fair consideration instead of just striking out at those who say things you don't want to hear.

I understand that "being a Berean" has become some sort of rallying cry for some sola scriptura Christians, but I think it has been blown way out of Biblical context.


Barbara reminded me privately of an article written by Steve Ray for Catholic apologetics magazine This Rock, back in 1997. It is available online here.

When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.

If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the "dogs," not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Crucified Rabbi

Musings From A Catholic Bookstore has an interview with Taylor Marshall, author of The Crucified Rabbi. Sounds as if it will be a very interesting book.

In 2007, I delivered twelve lectures at the Catholic Information Center in Washington, DC on Judaism from a Catholic perspective. The themes examined how Jesus fulfills the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, how the Messianic kingdom relates to the Church, the papacy, the Blessed Virgin, the priesthood, sacraments, liturgy, vestments, architecture…you name it . . .


When I was an Episcopalian priest doing a hospital visit, I met a Jewish rabbi who informed me that when a fellow Jew is suffering, they often invoke the name of that person’s mother in prayer with the belief that it provokes God’s mercy. This intrigued me, especially as to how it might relate to the Catholic practice of invoking the name of Mary—since she is the mother of the suffering servant Jesus Christ. This breakthrough led to many others. Eventually I was convinced that only Catholicism could truly account for the Jewish heritage of Christ and the Apostles. I renounced my Episcopalian ministry and became Catholic.

Assumption talk

Really guys! It is helpful if you keep comments on the blog topic so that when people are looking for information on the Assumption, they can find it!

I'm going to try and gather several of the comments together here, so that those who wish to continue discussing may do so.

Elena pasted from this article:

The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don't know how it first came to be celebrated.

Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337). By then it had been a pagan city for two centuries, ever since Emperor Hadrian (76-138) had leveled it around the year 135 and rebuilt it as Aelia Capitolina in honor of Jupiter.

For 200 years, every memory of Jesus was obliterated from the city, and the sites made holy by His life, death and Resurrection became pagan temples.

After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the "Tomb of Mary," close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived.

On the hill itself was the "Place of Dormition," the spot of Mary's "falling asleep," where she had died. The "Tomb of Mary" was where she was buried.

At this time, the "Memory of Mary" was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption.

For a time, the "Memory of Mary" was marked only in Palestine, but then it was extended by the emperor to all the churches of the East. In the seventh century, it began to be celebrated in Rome under the title of the "Falling Asleep" ("Dormitio") of the Mother of God.

I said to Jennie:

Well, I hope you don't celebrate Christmas, or worship on Sunday, or use grape juice instead of wine for the Lord's Supper. Because that all sounds good, but none of it is from Scripture.

Jennie replied:

I don't consider Christmas as a part of church doctrine. It's a tradition that some celebrate as part of church worship and some celebrate as just a family and cultural tradition. It's certainly not something that was commanded in scripture or done in the early church.

As to the other things, they are not major doctrines pertaining to salvation, but would be considered matters of freedom and conscience, as to what day to worship, and whether to use alcoholic wine for communion. There is not agreement on them, so we should do as conscience dictates. We don't believe traditions are bad, just that they must be in line with scripture.

The RC doctrines of Mary are not taught in scripture AND are in contradiction to it. They are myths with no historical support and, in protestant eyes, should not be believed and certainly should not be dogmas that everyone must believe. In the firm belief of many Christians, they take away from the supremacy of Christ and the gospel message, and point people to Mary instead.

I then wrote:

I get very frustrated that things non-Catholic Christians do which are traditions are always okay, even though they aren't Scriptural. Anything Catholics do which smack of tradition (such as pray the rosary) is met with the accusation that it isn't in the Bible, and therefore shouldn't be done.

How does the Assumption contradict Scripture, which is silent on what happened to Mary. Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven.

I would also disagree that there is no historical support. In my blog entry which I linked to earlier, you can see that the church which holds Mary's empty tomb is still around. Historical accounts always refer to an empty tomb.

It isn't as if there are accounts of the body being there, and then at a certain point they change to describing an empty tomb, as it would if the body were stolen.

Jennie's response:

I haven't heard of Mary's empty tomb. When does history speak of it? I've heard of many people going to the Holy Land to see Jesus' empty tomb, but not Mary's. I'll go back and look at your earlier blog entry.

The Bible records Jesus' resurrection and ascension, and earlier as you said it records Elijah and Enoch being taken up into heaven alive, so if Mary was assumed and it's so important to Christianity, why is it not recorded in scripture and testified to by early believers by many eyewitnesses as Jesus' death and resurrection and ascension were?

It looks like all the documents that refer to the assumption are from the 5th century or later. That's not the same as the eyewitness accounts of Christ and the historical accounts from the same period as Christ that speak of the events of the time. It still looks like the Mary stories came in later as myths.

Clare chimed in with:

It is a little bit intriguing to observe the lack of relics of Mary. No 'true bones' or anything.

The early church ( and this habit persists) tended to treat the mortal remains of saints with great care and reverence.

Daughter of Wisdom wrote this (in response to Clare):

I can shed a little light on why the body of Mary was not found.

The burial practices of 1st century Jews were markedly different from the modern burial practices of today, or of our culture. In first century Jewry, bodies were not embalmed or preserved. The body was anointed with special herbs such as myrrh or aloes to mask the stench as the body decomposed. Once the body had decomposed, the bones were taken and placed in a box called an ossuary, which contained all the bones of a particular family. These ossuaries were then stored in special burial caves where they could be retrieved at any time so that new bones from newly deceased family members could be added. For more information see Ossuary.

Another thing: The name Mary was very common back then. It would have been difficult to next to impossible for a devout Catholic who came along hundreds of years later (as there were no Roman Catholics in the first century) to to determine which bones belonged to Mary of Nazareth. The destruction of familial records by the then Roman empire, and the Jewish diaspora of 70 A.D would also make it virtually impossible for people to identify remains.

Conclusion: No body of Mary because the body had rotted away, and the documentation to identify the bones were destroyed.

Finally, Barbara wrote:

Much of what is known about Mary is found in the NT apocrypha. While some of these books were rejected from the official canon as heretical, others were rejected because their authorship was questioned, not their validity. Other things were passed down in oral tradition.

The reason that many doctrines about Mary were officially declared was in response to those questioning Jesus' humanity. Jesus was fully human because his mother was fully human. Would you not agree that a central tenent is that Christ was both human and divine.

---------------

Now, let us try to get back to the original question. How does the doctrine of the Assumption contradict Scripture?

The only response I've heard is that it would have been an important enough event that it should have been in Scripture. That is not proof of contradiction, folks.

Can God assume bodies into Heaven? Yes, there is Biblical proof of this.
Is Mary's death recorded in Scripture? No, it is not.
Therefore, this doctrine does not explicitly contradict Scripture.

Going back to Jennie's other original assertion, that traditions practiced by non-Catholic Christians are not major doctrines, but matters of personal choice in minor matters, I would point out the the doctrine of the Trinity is a major cornerstone of Christianity which was not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. It was also not agreed upon by the early Christians for this reason. The early church was nearly torn apart by this controversy, but eventually Arianism was declared a heresy.

So yes, Jennie, it is possible for major doctrines to not be explicitly found in Scripture.


As to the history of Mary. At the crucifixion of Jesus, Jesus gave Mary into the care of the apostle John. It is widely believed that Mary went to live with John in the city of Ephesus. The place where the house stood is a place of pilgrimage for both Christians and Muslims today. While the upper part of the house is newer, the foundations date back to the 1st century.

While Mary lived there, it is reasonable to assume that the disciples of Jesus came to visit her there. Luke does not name his "eyewitnesses" but from whom else would he have heard of the circumstances of the birth of Jesus? Was elderly Elizabeth still around to tell how John the Baptist leaped in her womb when Mary came to visit her?

St. John died and was buried in Ephesus, where a church was erected over his grave. The remains of it are still there. Similarly, the location of the tomb of Mary is still remembered with a church, which was built over the site of 1st century burial caves.

These people were very important to the early Christians. They began collecting "relics" from them. In Acts 19:11-12 it is recorded that people were healed of illness and possession by being touched by aprons or handkerchiefs which had touched Paul. That proved so successful, they kept track of Paul when he died.

The early Christians visited tombs of the martyrs and of significant Christians regularly. There exists ample historical evidence of this in the form of 1st century graffiti on the tombs. The Christians honored and remembered their dead. They made pilgrimage to their tombs. And when the persecution was over, churches were erected on these sites.

Consider the most significant example of this, the tomb of St. Peter in Rome. No, we can't prove that the DNA on the bones matches that of St. Peter. But it is becoming clear that with so many of these sites, they do date back to the earliest times. Christians honored and remembered their dead.

The Ultimate Anathema Post

Anathemas Part I- What is anathema and is it still around
Anathemas Part II- But this guy says that they really are still around
Anathemas Part III- In which the canons of Trent are actually discussed, instead of the anathemas

Now Paul has directed me to Turretinfan, who says this:

Today I encountered the following comment: "Anathemas were done away with under the most recent Code of Canon Law." It's not the first time I've seen this claim. The problem is this: I have the most recent Code of Canon Law and it doesn't (that I can find) even mention anathemas. I suppose that some folks in Roman Catholicism think this silence means that anathemas have been done away. That seems like as weak an argument as the argument that prayer veils are no longer required because of the silence regarding them. I wonder whether there is anything more to the argument than that. Any ideas anyone?

I'm aware of Mr. Akin's argument as follows:

Yet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

The problems with that type of argument are:

1) Where was anathema mentioned in the 1917 Code? I've perused that code and couldn't find it. Perhaps I overlooked something?

2) A penalty and a penal law are not the same thing.

If that's all Mr. Akin has, his argument seems exceptionally weak.

Anathemas are mentioned in canon 2257 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Unfortunately, not available online in English.

Can 2257 §1. Excommunicatio est censura qua quis excluditur a communione fidelium cum effectibus qui in canonibus, qui sequuntur, enumerantur, quique separari nequeunt.
§2. Dicitur quoque anathema, praesertim si cum sollemnitatibus infligatur quae in Pontificali Romano describuntur.


At any rate, you know what? I'm not a canon lawyer. I'm a stay at home, mother of four with an incredible non-sleeping baby. This is my night job. I have no idea if anathemas are still around or not. My question is, does it matter?

First, suppose anathema is still an option. It still needs a formal ceremony and lots of paperwork. When the Catholic Church excommunicates someone, it is a big deal. Usually there are news stories involved such as this or this.

I haven't seen any big anathema stories, so I'm guessing that if it is still an option, it isn't one which is used. The first story I linked to says that excommunication is the severest form of punishment, so I still feel that Jimmy Akin is right, and anathemas are no longer around. Clearly, none of you has been formally anathematized.

Second, suppose that not only are the anathemas still around, but the ones in Trent are in force, and DO apply to any non-Catholic who happens to pick up a copy of the canons of the Council of Trent. What does that mean?

The canons define what the Catholic Church believes. If you do not believe that you are anathema, or excommunicated. It means that you are out of communion, or not a part of the church. You do not agree with our statement of faith, therefore you are not a member. I don't see how that is a problem unless you are wanting to be calling yourself a Catholic while not holding to the tenets of the faith.

Is the offense that excommunication/anathema is intended as a warning that you are in danger of hell? Excommunication is a Biblical form of church discipline practiced by other faiths.

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

1 Cor 16:22 (explicit in KJV) If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Yes, we believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth. You, our separated brethren, have some aspects of the Truth, and we respect you for that. But I fail to see why you are so offended that we think you are wrong when you spend such a long time in the comments section trying to prove that . . . we are wrong and in danger of hell.

For an exhaustive look at anathemas, try over at Dave Armstrong's blog.

Candy's Changing Bible

Candy is writing on speaking in tongues today (technically known as glossolalia).

Open your Bible, and look at 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Now, if you have a Nelson King James Study Bible (a fabulous Bible, BTW, but, like all study Bibles, it has its doctrinal flaws and imperfections)

All study Bibles have doctrinal flaws and imperfections, but not Candy's interpretations . . .

What jumped out at me in her entry is her double standard on Bible translation. Let me refresh your memory of her view of Roman Catholic translation:

Vatican says - The Holy See Vatican says that the Catholic Church ("The Church") has the right to pass down traditions, and that these traditions hold as much water as the very Bible itself. reference 1

God says - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. -Mark 7:13

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. -Colossians 2:8

My Notes: This is WHY God gave us the Bible, so that we have His Word, written down, so that we don't have to depend on traditions to know what is right. Any tradition that goes against scripture, or that adds to it, is a tradition not needed, and could be eternally harmful.

Yet Candy writes today:

"Unknown tongues (lit. "tongue"): Omit unknown in this chapter whenever it occurs with tongues; it was supplied by the translators. Paul's discussion of tongues follow the same idea as the tongues in Acts which were foreign languages miraculously heard and translated by the recipients." Page 1784

I believe the above note to be wrong. The KJV translators were right to insert unknown in the text, because it makes the text more clear to the English ear. Acts chapter 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 are both speaking of the gift of tongues, BUT, they are speaking of two different types of tongue gifts. There is a distinction here, which a lot of people seem to miss. Remember, the Bible is full of fine distinctions like this.

So, adding to Scripture is wrong when Catholics do it, but not when the King James translators do it? I know, because the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the King James translators are divinely inspired. Really, she favors the KJV translation because it agrees with her interpretation.

She spends most of her article claiming an important distinction between "other tongues" and "unknown tongues" and then looks to Paul to approve her interpretation. But what are her proof texts?

Remember, forget what your church teaches on tongues, and let's see what the apostle Paul thinks of tongues. Does he approve of speaking in tongues? Let's read what he said on the matter:

"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all"- vs 18

"Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." -vs. 39

These verses only say "tongues" and do not specify unknown or other. Was Paul speaking in other tongues or unknown tongues?

Also, in typical Candy manner, she neatly pretends to best the Baptist argument against speaking in tongues while she never even presents their theological basis. From my understanding (and I'm always open to correction here, folks) Baptists don't deny that Paul or any of the early Christians spoken in tongues. They only feel that that particular gift was for the apostolic age and does not continue to the modern day.

Anathemas, Part II

This is pretty short and sweet. In the comments section, Candy writes:

And, according to Mr. Charles M. Wilson, who is an associate member of the Canon Law Society of America and president of the St. Joseph Foundation, all of the anathemas still stand. He is a credible source.

Well, there is a Mr. Charles Wilson, who is a canon lawyer and President of the St. Joseph Foundation. He would be a credible source, if Candy can prove that he said that. However, she does not give any evidence to that effect.

I believe her source is good ol' Peter and Paul Ministries. From their webpage: Mr. Charles M. Wilson, an associate member of the Canon Law Society of America and president of the St. Joseph Foundation when asked if the Code of 1983 repealed the anathemas he stated, “I can find nothing in the Code now in force that explicitly or implicitly removes any anathemas of Trent.”

That's pretty word for word, isn't it? I could find no other quotation from him in an online search, and the St. Joseph Foundation website is not public access.

Jimmy Akin on anathemas:

In fact, anathema was a kind of canonical penalty involving excommunication that used to be found in Church law that could be imposed for various offenses, including certain doctrinal ones. It did not take place automatically but had to be imposed by an ecclesiastical court and, since Church tribunals have better things to do than millions of trials for purposes of excommunicating every Lutheran in the world, it was never applied to more than a handful of individuals. It tended to be applied--and then rarely--only to people who made a pretense of staying within the Catholic community.

Excommunication also does not damn people to hell--it's an equivalent of disfellowshipping (cf. Matt. 18:17, 1 Cor. 5:1-2) meant to prompt the sinner to repentance (2 Cor. 2:5-8).

Further, anathema no longer exists in Church law. It ceased to exist with the release of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

The original article I linked to explains how anathemas ceased to exist with the new Code of Canon Law:

Yet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

Here's the current Code of Canon Law, Candy. Prove away!

Anathemas

Candy begins by giving a definition for anathema.

Definition of anathema: "A ban or curse pronounced with religious solemnity by ecclesiastical authority, and accompanied by excommunication. Hence: Denunciation of anything as accursed." - Source - Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Normally giving a dictionary definition helps to clarify terms. However, this can be confusing with ecclesiastical terms. For example, some dictionaries define "celibacy" as refraining from sexual activity, while in the Catholic Church, someone who is celibate is someone who has taken a vow to remain unmarried. We have discussed before, how the meaning of "mediator" has changed, as well as touched on the difference between a discipline that can change, and a doctrine, which cannot. But we'll get to that in a minute.

Candy's big source of information for this article is Peter and Paul Catholic Ministries. Are they a Catholic source of information? Nope. They're passing along the same old misinformation. We've covered this before. She even quotes the canons from the Council of Trent from their website, and they are readily available from neutral sources.

An anathema is a form of what we would call today, excommunication. This is based on Scripture, specifically what St. Paul wrote in Galatians 1:8–9 and 1 Corinthians 16:22.

Peter and Paul says "An anathema on an infallible statement can never be changed, and is always binding; otherwise the statement is not infallible."

This is not true. An anathema falls under the heading of church discipline. Like the robes the priest wears, or whether or not he can marry, discipline involves things that the Church can change.

Peter and Paul continues, "As a matter of fact Vatican II referred to the Council of Trent dozens of times and quoted Trent's proclamations as authority."

This continues to confuse the two categories of doctrine and discipline. The doctrine of the Council of Trent still stands. But that does not mean that the anathemas are still in effect.

I would point you to This Rock, which has a very informative article on anathema, and explains why a Catholic with faith in Jesus would not be anathema for their view.

The anathemas of Trent and other councils were like most penalties of civil law, which only take effect through the judicial process. If the civil law prescribes imprisonment for a particular offense, those who commit it do not suddenly appear in jail. Likewise, when ecclesiastical law prescribed an anathema for a particular offense, those who committed it had to wait until the judicial process was complete before the anathema took effect.

6. Anathemas applied to all Protestants. The absurdity of this charge is obvious from the fact that anathemas did not take effect automatically. The limited number of hours in the day by itself would guarantee that only a handful of Protestants ever could have been anathematized. In practice the penalty tended to be applied only to notorious Catholic offenders who made a pretense of staying within the Catholic community.

7. Anathemas are still in place today. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren’t in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.

8. The Church cannot retract its anathemas. Anti-Catholics love to repeat this falsehood for rhetorical flourish. But again, it isn’t true. The Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one.

So rest assured, those of you who are Catholics who believe that we are saved by God's grace, through Jesus Christ. You are not anathema. You are just following Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Catechism states:

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

#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)."

#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.

#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).

Candy has used this argument several times lately, in her post to Angie and in comments. She seems to feel she really has us cornered. But really, she is not an expert on canon law, and by relying on anti-Catholic groups, she is just spreading false information. The Catechism is currently the standard for Catholic teaching, and by opening it, it is easy to find that our faith affirms the same belief as she holds.

For Praisethelord

Praisethelord wrote:

Please define the difference between "Tradition" and "tradition" when you get a chance. Where would the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Assumption of Mary, and Co-Mediator teachings fall? Thank you!

Welcome to the blog, Praisethelord!

The Catholic Church does differentiate between "Tradition" and "tradition."

Tradition with a capitol 'T' refers to defined doctrines regarding faith and morals, which cannot be changed. It is made up of both Holy Scripture, and oral or written traditions which have been passed down through the centuries. For example, which books are in the Bible canon are Tradition, as they are not listed in the Bible. The vast majority of Tradition is composed of doctrines which almost all of Christianity agrees upon. For example, the Incarnation or the nature of the Trinity.

Usually, the Catholic Church only formally defines doctrines which they begin to be questioned. For example, the earliest doctrines were regarding the nature of the Trinity, because very early in Christianity, people questioned whether Jesus was equal to God, whether He had the same Divine nature.

Hence, the Nicene Creed, which states that Jesus was:

God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.

That is Tradition, which is now formally defined.

Similarly, various Marian doctrines were not formally defined until after the Reformation, because they were accepted until then. Martin Luther believed both in Mary's Perpetual Virginity, and in her Immaculate Conception.

I think most non-Catholics think of Marian doctrines as add-ons from the Middle Ages, but really, most date from the earliest times, 100-300 years A.D. Catholic Answers has quotations from the Early Church Fathers on the titles Ever Virgin, Full of Grace, and Mother of God.

The Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and her Assumption have been formally defined, and thus would fall under Tradition. Mary has not been formally defined as "Co-Mediatrix," but I believe this would probably still fall under Tradition, as it is also a very ancient view, and so the Church would be extremely unlikely to say that she is not "Co-Mediatrix."

There is a movement within the Catholic Church to formally define this title, but personally, I think it better to leave it undefined because it is so often misunderstood. I'm going to cut-and-paste from a previous post, here.

The Catholic Catechism, paragraph #1544 states: 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.

Considering Mary as mediatrix does not negate Jesus as the One Mediator. This is a difference in understanding what is meant by mediatrix. When Catholics refer to Mary as Mediatrix, we saying that God entered the world through her. Jesus was physically born by a woman, and that woman was Mary. Because she cooperated with God, by saying yes to him, Jesus was able to enter the world.

Does this mean our salvation depends on her? No. But because she cooperated with God, God worked through her (mediated), and so she has been known from the earliest time of Christianity as Theotokos, or God-Bearer.

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong gives a great answer to this question on his website:

7) So, just as we are allowed the unfathomable privilege of participating in our own redemption, likewise God willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, the Immaculate one, the perpetual Virgin, the Second Eve, would play a part in the Redemption of all, by consenting to the Sacrifice on the Cross of her Son, who was God in the flesh. She doesn't (solely and sufficiently) cause the Redemption any more than we (solely and sufficiently) cause our own redemption. Her role is to freely assent and to bear the suffering in her immaculate heart that Jesus bore in His Sacred Heart (hence those two devotions in Catholic theology).

8) "Co" in Latin does not mean "equal"; it merely means "with" or "alongside." We see this even in English. If you have a "co-pay" with regard to health insurance, that doesn't mean that you always pay equally with your insurance provider (I sure hope not!). "Co-Pilot" sometimes means "equal" but usually not. Etc. But because the term Co-Redemptrix is so misunderstood, it has fallen out of use in the last 50 years or so. But nevertheless, Pope John Paul II has used it at least five times, as Dr. Miravelle notes.

9) This was God's marvelous plan - to involve a creature and a woman at every step of the way, so as to achieve a certain "balance" - if I may properly speak in such a way. Eve brought down the human race, acting with Adam; Mary helped to raise it, acting in concert with Jesus Christ, her Son, the second Adam (as Paul describes Him). If Satan could cause the fall of the human race through the frailty of Woman and Man, why is it not plausible that God could in turn bring about the Redemption of the human race in part through the Immaculate Mary, the Second Eve, the Theotokos? To me it all makes eminent sense. It is contrary neither to Scripture nor to common sense and reason.

Tradition with a small 't' are things which are customary in the Church, but can be changed. For example, requiring celibacy for priests is a tradition, while reserving ordination for men is a Tradition. Other traditions include fasting regulations, what sort of sacred vessels can be used for Mass, whether to sprinkle or dunk for Baptism.

For a really good explanation of Tradition, I suggest reading an article by Mark Shea, who is a convert to Catholicism. Here are a few excerpts.

This pattern of seeing Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition is absolutely crucial to understand, because failure to grasp it accounts for an enormous amount of misunderstanding. Evangelicals who have received (usually without realizing it) a pair of contact lenses colored by the Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation can "see" that Tradition implied in Paul's commands to Timothy. Yet we do not derive the doctrine from Scripture. Rather, we see it reflected there. But since Evangelicals have not received the contact lenses with the Tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, they are unable to see it reflect there. Instead, they imagine that doctrine is arrived at by Catholics sitting down with a Bible and saying, "Let's see. What is the most tortured and extreme reading I can get out of Matthew 1:25 today? Hey! Let's say Mary remained a virgin perpetually!"

In reality, however, Catholics see the Perpetual Virginity of Mary reflected in Scripture in just the same way the Council of Jerusalem saw the Circumcision Exemption reflected in Amos and Evangelicals see the Closure of Public Revelation reflected in Paul's command to Timothy. The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed.

In this context, we discover not explicit, but implicit testimony to the doctrine, while those verses which appear to speak of Jesus' siblings or Mary's relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ can easily be understood in a way compatible with her perpetual virginity. We find, for instance, that mention of Jesus "brothers" can mean "cousins" in the first century Jewish milieu. We find that Matthew 1:25 need not necessarily imply anything about Mary's subsequent sexual relations with Joseph any more than "Michal had no children till the day of her death" implies that Michal had children after her death. We also find Mary-a woman betrothed-is astonished at Gabriel's proclamation that "You will bear a son." This is an odd thing for a betrothed woman to be astonished about. After all, a betrothed woman could expect and hope to bear many sons... unless she had already decided to remain a virgin even after marriage. Then she would be astonished at the prophecy.

We find also the New Testament subtly but clearly identifies Mary with the Ark of the Covenant, wherein dwelt the Presence of God. Luke 1:35 speaks of the power of the Most High "overshadowing" Mary just as the Shekinah glory overshadowed the Ark (Numbers 9:15). John does the same thing in Revelation, juxtaposing the Ark (Rev 11:19) with an image of a woman clothed with the sun who gives birth to a "male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter." (Rev. 12:5). The connection between Mary and the Ark, once it is made by with the help of Sacred Tradition, is hard not to see. Knowing the identity of Mary's "male child" it would be an easy mental connection for any pious Jew to immediately think of her as a kind of Second Ark.

Well, one such pious Jew was a certain Joseph of Nazareth who, after his dream (Mt 1:23) did know the identity of Mary's "male child." He also knew, as a Jew steeped in the Old Testament, what happens to people who touch the Ark without authorization (2 Sm 6:6-8). So it becomes very psychologically probable that Joseph, knowing what he knew, also would have chosen celibacy in this rather unusual situation. And so, in short, the Sacred Tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, like Sacred Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation, turns out to illuminate Scripture in an unexpected and yet satisfying way. Which is why the Church of the sixth century knows and defines (at the Second Council of Constantinople), that Mary is Ever-Virgin even though it is not written explicitly in the New Testament any more than the words "After the apostles die, there will be no new revelation." For the Second Council of Constantinople, knowing what the Council of Jerusalem knew, acts like the Council of Jerusalem did: operating in light of the apostolic Tradition that Mary was Ever-Virgin, the Church reads Scripture accordingly and sees its Tradition reflected there.

You can read my defense of Sacred Tradition here.

I hope this helped answer your questions, and let me know if you have any more.

Good Friday

(Or, belated Crucifixion Wednesday.)

St. Thomas Aquinas on the seamless garment:

He says, also his tunic, that is, they took that along with his other garments. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom. He says that it was without a seam to indicate its unity. Some say this shows how valuable it was. On the other hand, Chrysostom says that the Evangelist says this to suggest that it was common and ordinary; for in Palestine the poor wear clothing made from many pieces of cloth, one sewn over another: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor" (2 Cor 8:9).

As for the mystical interpretation, this passage can be referred to the mystical body of Christ. Then Christ's garments are divided into four parts because the Church is spread over the four parts of the world: "As I live, says the Lord, you shall put them all on as an ornament, you shall bind them on as a bride does" (Is 49:18). The tunic without seam, which was not divided, indicates charity, because the other virtues are not united by themselves, but by another, because all of them are directed to the ultimate end, and it is charity alone which unites us to this end. While it is faith which makes known our ultimate end, and by hope we tend toward it, only charity unites us to it: "And above all these put on love, which binds everything together" (Col 3:14).

The tunic is said to be woven from the top because charity is above, at the top, of all the other virtues: "I will show you a still more excellent way" (1 Cor 12:31); "To know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God" (Eph 3:19). Or, it is woven from the top because our charity does not come from ourselves, but from the Holy Spirit: "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom 5:5). The tunic woven from the top can also signify the real body of Christ, because the body of Christ was formed by a higher power, one from the top, by the Holy Spirit "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 1:20).

St. Augustine writes on the blood and water which flowed from the side of Jesus:

"Then came the soldiers, and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead already, they broke not His legs: but one of the soldiers with a spear laid open His side, and forthwith came there out blood and water."

A suggestive word was made use of by the evangelist, in not saying pierced, or wounded His side, or anything else, but "opened;" that thereby, in a sense, the gate of life might be thrown open, from whence have flowed forth the sacraments of the Church, without which there is no entrance to the life which is the true life. That blood was shed for the remission of sins; that water it is that makes up the health-giving cup, and supplies at once the laver of baptism and water for drinking.

This was announced beforehand, when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, Genesis 6:16 whereby the animals might enter which were not destined to perish in the flood, and by which the Church was prefigured. Because of this, the first woman was formed from the side of the man when asleep, Genesis 2:22 and was called Life, and the mother of all living. Genesis 3:20 Truly it pointed to a great good, prior to the great evil of the transgression (in the guise of one thus lying asleep). This second Adam bowed His head and fell asleep on the cross, that a spouse might be formed for Him from that which flowed from the sleeper's side.

O death, whereby the dead are raised anew to life! What can be purer than such blood? What more health-giving than such a wound?

John Chrysostom meditates on the death of Jesus:

But do thou consider, I pray, how even on the cross He did everything without being troubled, speaking with the disciple concerning His mother, fulfilling prophecies, holding forth good hopes to the thief.

Yet before He was crucified He appears sweating, agonized, fearing. What then can this mean? Nothing difficult, nothing doubtful. There indeed the weakness of nature had been shown, here was being shown the excess of Power.

Besides, by these two things He teaches us, even if before things terrible we be troubled, not on that account to shrink from things terrible, but when we have embarked in the contest to deem all things possible and easy. Let us then not tremble at death.

Stumble It!

Holy Thursday

St. Augustine:

"Who would not shrink back in dismay from having his feet washed by the Son of God . . . You? Me? Words to be pondered on rather than spoken about, lest words fail to express their true meaning."

"But what is this? what does it mean? and what is there in it we need to examine? The Lord says, The Truth declares that even he who has been washed has need still to wash his feet. What, my brethren, what think you of it, save that in holy baptism a man has all of him washed, not all save his feet, but every whit; and yet, while thereafter living in this human state, he cannot fail to tread on the ground with his feet.

And thus our human feelings themselves, which are inseparable from our mortal life on earth, are like feet wherewith we are brought into sensible contact with human affairs; and are so in such a way, that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. And every day, therefore, is He who intercedes for us, washing our feet: and that we, too have daily need to be washing our feet, that is ordering aright the path of our spiritual footsteps, we acknowledge even in the Lord's prayer, when we say, "Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors." For "if," as it is written, "we confess our sins," then verily is He, who washed His disciples' feet, "faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness," that is, even to our feet wherewith we walk on the earth."

John Chrysostom:

"Let us see also what He doeth now towards the disciples, or rather what actions He now exhibiteth towards the traitor. The man whom most of all there was reason to hate, because being a disciple, having shared the table and the salt, having seen the miracles and been deemed worthy of such great things, he acted more grievously than any, not stoning indeed, nor insulting Him, but betraying and giving Him up, observe in how friendly sort He receiveth this man, washing his feet; for even in this way He desired to restrain him from that wickedness.

Yet it was in His power, had He willed it, to have withered him like the fig-tree, to have cut him in two as He rent the rocks, to have cleft him asunder like the veil; but He would not lead him away from his design by compulsion, but by choice. Wherefore He washed his feet; and not even by this was that wretched and miserable man shamed."

St. Josemaria Escriva:

"'I have given you an example', he tells his disciples after washing their feet, on the night of the Last Supper. Let us reject from our hearts any pride, any ambition, any desire to dominate; and peace and joy will reign around us and within us, as a consequence of our personal sacrifice."

Although, I suppose this might give more proof of the tendency of the Catholic Church to read more into the text than is there. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. Good, now they're nice and clean, and ready for supper . . .








Stumble It!

Succession and Tradition

One of the reasons I haven't really tackled Richard Bennett, is that I have been having a discussion about some points of Catholic doctrine on another blog. This blogger generally prefers not to be identified on this blog, but I wanted to share some of the things which I have written.

This person feels that there is no Biblical basis for apostolic succession. The apostles were commissioned by God to preach the Word and write Scripture, but that passed away with them.

The best scripture for apostolic succession is Acts 1:15-26, where Peter (*ahem*) tells the other apostles that they should ordain another apostle, and they then proceed to ordain Matthais.

Further, why are Luke and Mark's writings in the Bible? They were not commissioned by Jesus, either before his death, or after, in the way that Paul was. By this logic, they should not have authority, because authority passed away with the apostles and they were not apostles.

She countered that Luke and Mark were apostles, and were commissioned by the Holy Spirit.

The problem with this, is that this is not stated anywhere in the Bible. While Paul claims in his writings that he was commissioned by Jesus, neither Luke nor Mark make such a claim. Actually, the author of the Gospel of Luke says that he is compiling a narrative which he got from eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. He is claiming no inspiration or revelation.

Why did I say "the author of the Gospel of Luke"? Because neither Luke nor Mark actually claim any authorship. No authorship is given at all in these texts. You have to rely on Tradition to put a name with the text.

We also covered Tradition in a different context, when she pointed to the Arians as proof that Sola Scriptura existed before the Reformation. Just to be clear, I don't think that she was claiming that the Arians were correct in doctrine, just that the idea of Sola Scriptura existed before Martin Luther, and that there were scriptures available at that early time.

I replied:

I think that most of the early heresies were rooted in a denial of Tradition, because it is so easy to make Scripture say anything your want it to. Most heresies either deny Tradition, or have a prophet leader who correctly interprets Scripture, or selectively edits the Bible canon, as Luther was tempted to do.

What I have said previously, is that there was no one continuous non-Catholic group of Christians, which had a unified set of beliefs.

Yes, the Arians were Sola Scriptura. That's because Tradition refuted their beliefs. I was all set to write out the beliefs of Arians, and how they relate to sola scriptura, but then I remembered that Mark Shea had that handled in his book By What Authority, so I borrowed this from him:

Arians were principally concerned to preserve the Oneness of God from pagan polytheism. They argued from Scripture. They were well-trained theologians who could read Scripture in the original tongues. The only problem was that they had the idea that Jesus was not truly God but only a sort of superior created being.

In defense of this idea, the Arians rejected tradition and pointed to texts like "the Father is greater than I" (Jn. 14:28) and "Why do you call me good?... No one is good-except God alone" (Mk. 10:18). They could come up with plausible explanations for terms and expressions which we Evangelicals think could only point to Christ's divinity. For example, Arians said the statement, "I and the Father are one" (Jn. 10:30) refers to oneness of purpose, not oneness of being. They pointed out that Scripture refers to supernatural created beings as "sons of God" (Job 38:7 NAB) without intending they are one in being with the Father. They observed that even mere humans were called "gods" (Ps. 8:2-6; Jn. 10:34-36), without the implication that they are God. Therefore they inferred that the Son, supernatural though he may be (as angels, principalities, and powers are supernatural), is neither co-eternal with the Father nor one in being with him.

How would you argue against Arianism using Scripture alone? We'd say that John speaks of the "only begotten" and says of him that he "was God" and was "with God in the beginning" (Jn. 1:1-2, 18; 3:16). We would reply that, although the "Trinity" is not in Scripture, nonetheless the concept of Trinity is there.

But a good Arian would be quick to point out that God plainly says, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father" (Heb. 1:5), which implies that there was a time before the Son was begotten. In other words, the Arian can argue that there was a time when the Son was not. But there was never a time when the Father was not. He is without beginning. Therefore, according to the Arian, the Son does not share God's eternal, beginningless essence. This amounts to a denial of the deity of Christ. Great and supernatural as he may be compared to the rest of creation (and Paul implies he is a creature when he calls him the first-loom over all creation [Col. 1:15], doesn't he?), nonetheless he is only a creature, says the Arian.

The Arian heresy arose in the early 4th century, so, yes, they would have a pretty complete New Testament Bible canon by that time.

We also have early affirmation in belief in Tradition:

Irenaeus wrote around 120 AD (keeping in mind, this is hardly after the NT was written):
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture or tradition" (Against Heresies 3,2:1).

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3,4:1).

Tertullian wrote around 180 AD:

"Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition" (Prescription against the Heretics,28).

"[The Apostles] next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality, — privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery"

Your main question is, doesn't Scripture have everything we need to attain salvation? We had the commissioned Apostles spreading the word orally, they wrote it down, died, and then we had the New Testament.

My question is, what about those people who lived in that gray time before the NT canon was complete in all areas of the known world?

At the time that Irenaeus wrote, you could hear all four Gospels and two letters from Paul read in church. Plus the Martyrdom of Polycarp and Letters of Clement, while the letters of Peter and John were not considered canonical, nor was Hebrews or Revelation.

When Tertullian wrote (he was actually one of the first to use the phrase "New Testament"), you could hear the Gospels, Acts, most of the letters of Paul, one letter from Peter, one from John, Revelation and Jude, PLUS letters from Barnabas and Clement, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter (since John's was so popular?), and the Acts of Paul.

Hebrews and James were not even quoted in the Western church until after 350, while the letters of Pope Clement continued to be included in the Bible through the fifth century! Sure, we could probably live without Philemon, but how would ever get by without James or Hebrews?

Would a Christian in one of those churches have everything they need to attain salvation in one of those churches, hearing the Gospel of Mark, the Shepherd of Hermas, and not Hebrews?"

Stumble It!

Yes, I know

Yes, I know about that link to Richard Bennett's site, which Candy hid in her otherwise innocent post on the "emergent church cult."

The problem is, Richard Bennett is always really, really, wrong. And it takes time to write out a lengthly rebuttal of all that wrongness.

I mean, right on the first page of this three part article, he says "What McLaren never tells is that the authority of the Roman Papacy was not well established until near the end of the eleventh century, when by crusades and the Inquisition, the Papacy by coercion forced people to submit to her ecclesiastical dictates."

Pope Clement wrote in the 90's AD that The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."

Pope Damascus wrote in the late 300's "Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons."

There are lots more examples, but clearly, the papacy was well-established before the eleventh century.

So, just take my word for it, Richard Bennett is not a reliable source of information. You can read previous posts about him on this blog here and here.

You can also read the full text of the document which Bennett quotes from here.





Stumble It!

Candy versus the Vatican

In case we are having non-Catholic visitors because of Candy's latest post, I thought I would address some of the points that she raised, and give some additional resources.

First issue, the salvation of Muslims:
Vatican says - "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims;

Candy's link takes you to the appropriate section of the Catechism, and that is worth reading. Another good read is the document Dominus Iesus.

Some relevant excerpts:

In fact, the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Saviour, who through the event of his incarnation, death and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfilment, and which has in him its fullness and centre, must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church's faith.

It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.

For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.

To summarize on that point, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation always comes through Jesus Christ, the one Mediator. If Muslims are saved, it will be because God somehow saved them through Jesus.

Next point: Vatican says - The Holy See Vatican says that the Catholic Church ("The Church") has the right to pass down traditions, and that these traditions hold as much water as the very Bible itself.

This is true. I have written about Sacred Tradition here.

Vatican says - That the Catholic Church canonizes saints.

I see no contradiction with the verses which Candy quotes, and in the Vatican position here. Candy mentioned in another article that the Catholic church creates saints. This is not true.

Canonization is an official recognition that a person is a saint. A saint is a Christian, who is in heaven. The Catholic Church teaches that we are all called to be saints, and also that those who are officially recognized (i.e., canonized) are only a small number of the many, many saints that have existed.

Vatican says - The Vatican repeatedly calls their pope "Holy Father."

Catholic Answers has a good rebuttal to this charge here.

Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Also, you can go to the Scripture Catholic website for many references to calling someone "father" in Scripture. A few excerpts:

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called "fathers." Therefore, we should ask the question, "Why don't Protestants call their pastors "father?"

1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, "I became your father in Christ Jesus."

Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the "father" of Onesimus.

Vatican says - "The members of the Rosary Sodality, therefore, do exceedingly well in weaving together, as in a crown, so many salutations and prayers to Mary."

I'm surprised that we haven't covered the communion of saints, and intercessory prayer yet. I'll save that for another post.

Vatican says - "Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a mediatrix [mediator] not as an outsider, but in her position as mother."

The Catholic Catechism, paragraph #1544 states: 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.

Considering Mary as mediatrix does not negate Jesus as the One Mediator. This is a difference in understanding what is meant by mediatrix. When Catholics refer to Mary as Mediatrix, we saying that God entered the world through her. Jesus was physically born by a woman, and that woman was Mary. Because she cooperated with God, by saying yes to him, Jesus was able to enter the world.

Does this mean our salvation depends on her? No. But because she cooperated with God, God worked through her (mediated), and so she has been known from the earliest time of Christianity as Theotokos, or God-Bearer.

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong gives a great answer to this question on his website.

God says - But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. -Matthew 6:7

I covered vain repetition here.

Vatican says - [Catholics have a different set of 10 commandments than the ones God gave us in the Bible]

Elena talked about why protestants and Catholics differ on the 10 commandments here.

Vatican says - "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." - The Roman Catholic version of Genesis 3:15 Reference - The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible

From the New American Bible, the official Catholic Bible of the American Conference of Bishops Genesis 3:15 "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The footnote reads "the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

For a discussion of the Douay-Rheims translation difference, see This Rock.

Now, see, the difference between the Vatican and God isn't so great as it first appears, is it?

Former Father

From This Rock:

Among the most venomous of enemies of the faith are former Catholics, especially former priests. Catholic Answers was originally begun to counter the disinformation spread by a failed priest. Now anti-Catholic Fundamentalists have an entire book of such propaganda in their arsenal: Far from Rome, Near to God, which assembles the "testimonies" of fifty apostate priests. (To find fifty they are forced to dig up renegades from past centuries, including arch-apostate Charles Chiniquy, author of such gems as The Priest, the Woman, and the Confessional.)

Co-edited by former priest Richard Peter Bennett, the book is distributed by groups such as Christians Evangelizing Catholics, Bart Brewer's Mission to Catholics International, and Mike Gendron's Bold Truth.

Bennett tells his own story in "From Tradition to Truth." It isn't difficult to understand how Bennett, who sounds like a sincere man, came to leave the Church. Describing his "conversion," he says, "I suffered for fourteen years, no one ever having the courage to speak the truth to me. . . . I pray that the Father will give you grace that you may accept that Christ died in your place on the cross, and know that his atonement is sufficient to make you a new creature in him."

Bennett trots out the worn canards: He was disturbed by the "outward pomp" and "inner emptiness" of Rome. He was taught only "rote, set prayer" and discovered "direct personal prayer" by accident. "I did not know my way through the Bible," he acknowledges.

One is baffled by the notion that any Catholic, much less a priest, could have so failed to grasp the essentials of the faith. But Bennett's most serious gaffe, in the opinion of our resident observer of religious life, is his remark that he spent eight years in the Dominican Order "studying what it is to be a monk."

Dominicans aren't monks. They are friars. Monks live in monasteries, usually in the same monastery for life. Their chief work is prayer. Friars are apostolic religious who are sent on mission as needed, to preach, teach, and give other service.

A small distinction? Maybe. But one to which any Benedictine or Carmelite-or Dominican-would be keenly sensitive. The problem with these "converted" priests is that one never knows the full story. Were they dismissed from the ministry for misconduct? Were they even really priests? A little investigation revealed that Jack Chick's "Alberto" was never a Jesuit. We wonder what we'd find if we explored the histories of the contributors to Near to God, Far from Rome.

Dave Armstrong does an excellent job of refuting Mr. Bennett's theology here:

"Aligned with Proverbs, the Lord's strong, clear declaration in Isaiah 8:20 is: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." The truth is this: since God's written word alone is inspired, it -- and it alone -- is the sole rule of faith. It cannot be otherwise.

It certainly can be "otherwise" since it is in fact, according to the Bible itself (thus showing sola Scriptura to be a self-defeating concept, since it cannot even be established from Scripture Alone -- the very concept under consideration). This thinking is shot-through with internal contradiction. One falsehood is accepted, and then the system is built upon it, by adding other falsehoods. But a structure with a weak foundation cannot stand.

Mr. Bennett keeps appealing to the Old Testament to "prove" his nonexistent case, as if (his hidden, unspoken assumption) the Jews of that period accepted sola Scriptura as he does. But they did not. And this fact is clearly attested by reputable Protestant scholarly sources, such as The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (edited by Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987 -- from Bijbelse Encyclopedie, ed. W.H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands, 1975 --, 1014-1015)."

A Defense of Sacred Tradition

I originally wrote this for Amy at Blessed Motherhood, but it seems to be a good time to post it here.

Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We believe that the Bible is authoritative, but that Sacred Tradition is also authoritative, and can help us to interpret (not contradict) scripture, in cases where the words of scripture may be able to have more than one meaning.

Let us journey back to the first time God gave his Word to his people. God gave the Law to Moses. But God gave Moses the Law in two forms, both written and oral. The oral Law was eventually written down, as the Talmud, in the two parts of the Mishna and Gemara.

Jews consider both the oral and the written Law as authoritative. From Judaism 101:
"When did the Jewish People receive the "Oral Torah?" They received it at Sinai, along with the Written Torah. What else do you think Moshe Rabbeinu, Moses our Teacher, was doing up there for forty days and forty nights, neither "eating bread nor drinking water" according to the testimony of the Bible. If not studying the "Oral" Part of the Torah from the Master Teacher, G-d Himself? The Oral Torah is required because without it, its counterpart, the Written Torah, would be incomprehensible."

This is why Jews interpret a prohibition on cooking a calf in its mother's milk to refer to a prohibition on any mixing of meat and dairy products.

Jesus studied the Talmud with the Rabbis in the Temple. The Jews of his time, as the Jews today, would have considered Sacred Tradition as authoritative as the written Scripture. To say that the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) was authoritative is a serious breech with Judaism.

Now, Christianity departs from Judaism in many ways. But we see in the New Testament that any serious changes are discussed. We read in the New Testament that we are no longer bound to obey the Law, including the dietary restrictions. Men are no longer bound to be circumcised. But no where in the New Testament is it written that ONLY the written Scripture is to be considered authoritative.

On the contrary Paul writes in 2 Thess. 2:15 that we are to stand firm and hold to the traditions which we were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. If Paul wants us to stand fast to traditions which we have been taught, then clearly not all traditions are "traditions of men."

If Jesus meant to build a foundation on Scripture alone, then why did he not command his apostles to immediately write down his Word, as Moses did upon leaving the mountain? Over and over you read in the New Testament that Jesus commanded his apostles to preach, and preach they did. Only three apostles wrote any scripture. Most were written by disciples of the apostles, which means that they were writing down oral tradition, not the words that they heard from Jesus himself.

Thus, the authority of the written New Testament is based on oral tradition. Sacred Tradition is not reliance on the words of others or the traditions of men, but on the Word of God, and the traditions left to us by the apostles, who certainly did not leave an abundance of written words behind.

The New Testament does not claim to be complete of itself. John 20:30; 21:25 writes that Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura claims that the Bible is complete, and that every man can interpret scripture for himself. There is to be no other authority, including oral tradition, to help in interpreting scripture. If that were the case, then why would you have so many books published to help you to understand scripture? Why do you have sermons at Church to help you to interpret scripture? Shouldn't Church then consist of one person reading aloud from scripture, then everyone adjoining to share a meal because everyone exactly agrees on what that scripture meant?

If the Holy Spirit will help us all to interpret Scripture correctly, then why is there not one united protestant church against the Catholic and Orthodox churches? The early reformers could not even achieve unity, but quickly broke into groups, which have broken into more and more groups with each generation.

Acts 8:30-31: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Why didn't Philip explain to the Eunuch that all he had to do was pray to the Holy Spirit to help him interpret the Bible, and he would receive the correct meaning?

1 Tim 3:15 says that the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth," not scripture.

Col. 4:16 shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon.

There are many, many places in the New Testament that show that Sacred Tradition exists, and that we should not rely on the Bible alone. I have quoted several, but I strongly suggest you go to http://www.scripturecatholic.com/ and read through the sections on Scripture Alone and Oral Tradition to read them all.

Another great resource for understanding that the Catholic Church really teaches about Sacred Tradition is Mark Shea's What is Sacred Tradition?

Of course, Catholic Answers is always a good read, too.