Young, Evangelical, and Catholic

The March for Life, evangelicals, and the pro-life cause

2012-02-27T11:35:00.000-06:00

Last summer, my wife and I both got airline vouchers while traveling to see family, and I got the idea to use mine to travel to Washington DC and take part in the annual March for Life. It was very inspiring and only further convinced me that I need to do more for the pro-life cause (notice my new Pro-Life tab and that five of my six posts related to abortion so far on this blog, including this one, have been published since the march).

There's a lot that I could say about what the March for Life was like, but there was one thing that was very, very striking: everyone there was Catholic.

I don't mean among the speakers: among those that spoke at the rallies/events there were Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews, in addition to many who didn't identify their religion. In fact, probably the most rousing, passionate speaker at the rally immediately before the march was an african-american protestant preacher.

But in the crowd - which was several hundred thousand people - it appeared as though almost every single person there was Catholic, and I'm not exaggerating. Every single thing (with one exception, explained below) that I saw that identified a group or a person's religion was Catholic: Knights of Columbus signs, hats or sweatshirts with the name of a diocese or parish, buses with the names of Catholic schools on the side, banners representing Catholic universities; people holding rosaries, crucifixes, or images of our Blessed Mother; more priests in collars and monks and religious sisters in habits than I've ever seen before in my life. And it's not like there weren't many things around that identified a person's religion; the crowd was saturated with these things.

Among the tables in the March for Life exhibit hall, most of the organizations were overtly Catholic, with some of the tables being manned by monks or religious sisters, and some selling icons, rosaries, and other Catholic things; and many of the people working at the tables that I spoke to were Catholic (some of whom were converts to Catholicism like myself). None were overtly identifiable as being related to another Christian denomination or religion that I can remember.

The rally before the march; one can see signs
for Knights of Columbus, St Jude Catholic
School, Holy Sepulcher Parish,
and the Archdiocese of Hartford, et al.

In addition, because I traveled there by myself, I talked to a lot of random people that weekend who were also in Washington DC for the march: in my youth hostel, in museums, and at various events connected to the march, even on my plane ride home. Every single person I spoke to who was there for the march was Catholic. In my youth hostel, I spoke to a few people who were there with a big group from the Catholic ministry at the University of Kansas, and one of them mentioned that, while the trip was organized by the Catholic ministry, a couple protestants had come with them. That's the closest I got to any indication that there were any protestants in the crowd at the march at all.

Am I exaggerating when I say that every single mark of religion was Catholic? Ok, I admit it, there was one exception: I saw one person holding a Jewish pro-life sign in the crowd at the march. But that's it (and I'm not exaggerating here).

And I looked, too. Since I was there by myself, I could move freely throughout the crowd to get a bigger perspective of who was there. When it became obvious that every hat, sweatshirt, bus, sign, and banner that I had seen so far was Catholic, I spent the rest of the rally and march actively looking for any marker of other religions or Christian denominations. The one Jewish sign is the only thing I could find (this of course does not prove no other signs existed).

As I've been slowly delving further into the pro-life movement in the last year or so, it has certainly come to appear as though the majority of the people in involved are Catholic (please feel free to correct me on this in the comments).

The main pro-life activist organization in the Twin Cities near where I live is run by a Catholic, and once when I heard him describe the organization, he indicated that, although the organization is non-denominational, something like 75% of the people involved are Catholic. The big ecumenical prayer service in the Twin Cities held on the anniversary of Roe v Wade every year is held in the Cathedral of St Paul (granted, it's a big space and just down the street from the state capital where they do a march afterwards).

A local ecumenical prayer service (for those who can't drive down to the Twin Cities) on the same day is run by one of our parishioners. Our local Life Chain event is also run by one of our parishioners. My wife recently started volunteering at a local Birthright office after being encouraged to get involved by one of our parishioners, and she has often commented at how many of the volunteers are from our parish.

UnPlanned, by Abby Johnson

Many prominent pro-life leaders are Catholic: Nellie Gray, founder of the March for Life; Lila Rose, founder of Live Action (convert to Catholicism); Abby Johnson, pro-life speaker and author of UnPlanned (convert to Catholicism); Bryan Kemper, founder of Stand True Ministries (convert to Catholicism); Joseph Scheidler, the national director of Pro-Life Action League; Fr Frank Pavone, national director of Gospel of Life Ministries; Theresa Karminski Burke, founder of Rachel's Vineyard; Mary Ann Kuharski, director of Pro-Life Across America: "The Billboard People"; John-Henry Weston, co-founder and editor-in-chief of Life Site News; and the late Bernard Nathanson (convert to Catholicism); and many, many more.

Were there Christians of other denominations, people of other religions, and even people of no religion at all at the march? I'm sure there were (it was a big crowd). And there are of course many evangelicals, and other non-Catholics, who have fought the evil of abortion courageously, and I do not mean to diminish their work and sacrifice. Neither do I mean to imply that because the pro-life movement seems to consist primarily of Catholics that therefore Catholicism is the one true religion.

But I do mean to offer a challenge to my evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ: where were you? It was my first time at the march, and so I could be asking myself a similar question: where was I before?

I can honestly say that becoming Catholic has brought the pro-life cause much more into my view. At the baptist church I went to with my family in high school and at the evangelical school Wheaton College that I attended for undergrad, many people I knew would have said that they were pro-life, and I knew a few people who were very passionately pro-life and involved in pro-life activities. But frankly, compared to how often abortion has been brought up to me since being in Catholic circles, there wasn't much going on.

And when it's brought up in Catholic circles, it's different too, since the belief that abortion is a very grave moral evil that must be stopped has been a very prominent, clear, authoritative teaching of the Church. In other words, if one wants to take being Catholic seriously, one has to take abortion seriously.

The Holy Family

Of course, it's a great scandal that there are many Catholics that don't take abortion seriously (or even fight for abortion), but in my experience such people tend to not take Church teaching seriously in general (e.g. contraception, womenpriests, homosexual acts, true ecumenism, evangelism, etc), practicing instead a form of cafeteria Catholicism. If a person actually believes Catholic teaching, it's impossible for abortion not to be a very big problem for them.

And so I encourage my evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ to more fully mobilize their great passion, creativity, and resources for the pro-life cause, and I thank those evangelicals who have long been in the trenches. I also exhort my fellow Catholics, that more of us would join in the pro-life cause and that we would better keep our fellow Catholics accountable. Together, we can finally abolish abortion and build a culture of life.

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

Below is a great video of young people at the March for Life 2012 explaining why they are pro-life; produced by the BadCatholic Marc Barnes

The US Catholic Bishops were the real enemy - in 1968

2012-02-22T15:12:00.001-06:00

Bernard Nathanson

So I just started reading Bernard Nathanson's famous 1979 book Aborting America. I admit I'm not done reading it yet, but I've already come across some passages regarding how the pro-abortion movement viewed the Catholic Church that are so interesting (though unsurprising) I thought I'd share them right away.

First, if you are unfamiliar with the amazing story of Bernard Nathanson (1926-2011), you'll need some background:

In the 1969, Bernard Nathanson, an OB/GYN doctor, helped co-found the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America) with Larry Lader. They organized lobbying and demonstrations for the repeal of all restrictions on abortions, as well as worked to exploit loopholes in the current laws to expand access to abortion. Bernard Nathanson himself performed abortions and even developed new abortion techniques and, from 1971-1972, was the director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health in New York, which at the time was the largest abortion clinic in the world.

In the early 1970s, however, with the advancement of ultrasound technology, Bernard Nathanson's pro-abortion thinking was challenged. In 1974, he wrote a piece for the New England Journal of Medicine called "Deeper into Abortion" in which he explained: "I am deeply troubled by my own increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths"

In 1975, Bernard Nathanson resigned from NARAL and became a leading pro-life advocate. And in 1979, he published Aborting America, in which he explained the pro-abortion movement from the inside and why he changed his mind.

Though he eventually joined the Catholic Church at the age of 70 in 1996, Bernard Nathanson was a self-identified atheist when he published Aborting America in 1979, which he explains towards the beginning of the book:

I have never entered a synagogue again since [my Bar Mitzvah], nor, may I add, any other house of worship. My father undermined religiosity in me so continually and so artfully that I was left with nothing to believe in. Consequently, I am not only a convinced atheist but have never been particularly interested in organized religion. It is fair to say that my opinions about abortion - or anything else - have never been influenced in the slightest by the empires of faith (pg. 6)

Now for the part about the Catholic Church; I'll let the passages speak for themselves.

Before co-founding NARAL together, Bernard Nathanson and Larry Lader spent months meeting together to discuss ideas of how to repeal abortion laws. In this excerpt from his book Aborting America (published 1979), Nathanson describes one conversation they had in 1968 while driving home from a short trip with their two families:

Then Larry brought out his favorite whipping-boy.

"...and the other thing we've got to do is bring the Catholic hierarchy out where we can fight them. That's the real enemy. The biggest single obstacle to peace and decency throughout all of history."

He held forth on that theme through most of the drive home. It was a comprehensive and chilling indictment of the poisonous influence of Catholicism in secular affairs from its inception until the day before yesterday. I was far from an admirer of the church's role in the world chronicle, but his insistent, uncompromising recitation brought to mind the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It passed through my mind that if one had substituted "Jewish" for "Catholic," it would have been the most vicious anti-Semitic tirade imaginable. I attempted a mild remonstrance.

"But, Larry, the Catholic Church isn't all bad. Don't forget that among other things they did more or less keep the intellectual world together in the Dark Ages."

Even his wife, Joan, a diminutive Scotswoman with a sense of humor and booming laugh, joined me in temperate dissent, and this distaff resistance seemed to annoy him unreasonably:

"Now honey, please. Let's not regress. I think you and I have covered that subject pretty thoroughly before, so no backsliding if you don't mind." She subsided, but I was still alive.

"Well, Larry, what do you think? Is the Catholic hierarchy identical with the anti-abortion forces? Aren't there any others opposed to abortion?" As I nosed the car into the Lincoln Tunnel traffic, he set the intellectual tone for the next eight years with a single word.

"No." (pg. 33)

Nathanson describes another conservation that he and Lader had early on in the strategic planning for the newly formed NARAL:

...Larry read me my last basic lesson in the political primer.

"Historically," he said after the usual throat-clearing ceremony, "every revolution has to have its villain. It doesn't really matter whether it's a king, a dictator, or a tsar, but it has to be someone, a person, to rebel against. It's easier for the people we want to persuade to perceive it this way." I conceded that. It was good tactical strategy. "Now, in our case, it makes little sense to lead a campaign only against unjust laws, even though that's what we really are doing. We have to narrow the focus, identify those unjust laws with a person or a group of people. A single person isn't quite what we want, since that might excite sympathy for him. Rather, a small group of shadowy, powerful people. Too large a group would diffuse the focus, don't you see?"

I nodded. Where was he going?

"There's always been one group of people in this country associated with reactionary politics, behind-the-scenes manipulation, socially backward ideas. You know who I mean, Bernie."

Not the Catholics again?

"Well, yes and no." Throat-clearing again. A heavy thought coming. And I wasn't wrong. It was his devil theory.

"Not just all Catholics. First of all, that's too large a group, and for us to vilify them all would diffuse our focus. Secondly, we have to convince liberal Catholics to join us, a popular front as it were, and if we tar them all with the same brush, we'll just antagonize a few who might otherwise have joined us and be valuable show-pieces for us. No, it's got to be the Catholic hierarchy. That's a small enough group to cone [sic] down on, and anonymous enough so that no names ever have to be mentioned, but everybody will have a fairly good idea whom we are talking about."

His syntax was as careful and as surgical as his daily shave. It was irrefutable. The only thing that was a little jarring, even to my untutored mind, was that the original nineteenth-century laws in New York and elsewhere had been placed on the books mostly by doctors when there were few Catholic around. I raised that question, hesitantly.

"Bernie, we're talking politics now. Watch and see how respectful of facts the opposition will be once our campaign gets going. Just listen to the opposition."

[...] For their part, of course, the Catholic bishops were to play right into our hands, by their heavy-handed politicking, making abortion appear to be purely a "Catholic issue" rather than an interreligious one. They also weakened the credibility of the anti-abortion forces because of their unflinching opposition to the major alternatives to abortion: artificial birth control and voluntary sterilization. (pg. 51-52)

HHS Mandates Rhetoric: Wading Through the Nonsense

2012-02-14T23:58:00.000-06:00

The recent (and continuing) HHS mandate controversy has generated a great deal of nonsense, some to which I've felt compelled to respond, either due to its inaccuracy or lack of respect for the Catholic Church:

NY Times Gets It Wrong

Following Obama's offer for an accommodation for religious objections to the new HHS mandates on February 10th, the NY Times editor wrote that the whole uproar over the HHS mandates was "a phony crisis over 'religious liberty' engendered by the right".

No doubt, many Republican lawmakers who otherwise couldn't care less about the religious liberty of Catholics have, in just the last few weeks, picked up the cause only as a weapon to attack Obama. (And frankly, I've been very disappointed to see that something as fundamental as protecting religious liberty has fallen along partisan lines among politicians.)

But to say that the US bishops, along with many leaders of other religions, many of whom have come from across the political spectrum, who have been fighting the HHS mandates for the last six months (yes, the rules were first issued in August of last year, and were opposed immediately) are really just a part of some Republican conspiracy is so absurd that it would be comical if it wasn't so insulting. Because these claims are obviously false, the NY Times has shown itself to be either embarrassingly ignorant of the most basic details of one of the biggest stories of the year or to be purposefully misleading people.

In addition, the phrase "religious liberty" is in scare quotes, as though it is a euphemism invented and used only by those who were against the HHS mandates. Such mocking of the first and most important right in our Bill of Rights from supposedly one of what our country's foremost newspapers is itself greatly disconcerting.

The NY Times editor also wrote:

[I]t was dismaying to see the president lend any credence to the misbegotten notion that providing access to contraceptives violated the freedom of any religious institution. Churches are given complete freedom by the Constitution to preach that birth control is immoral, but they have not been given the right to laws that would deprive their followers or employees of the right to disagree with that teaching.

The controversy is not about access to contraception but about who will be paying for it. Also, no one has asked for "laws that would deprive their followers or employees of the right to disagree with that teaching" - so not only is this a red herring, but it implies that someone has asked for such laws, which is false and therefore misleading.

But what's most disturbing here is that the editor has decided to collapse religious freedom into the freedom of speech. While the two freedoms are of course linked, they are distinct in our Bill of Rights and certainly very distinct in application. The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." The free exercise of religion is far more than being able to say what your religion teaches; it also includes being able to actually do what your religion teaches - which includes being able to do something as basic as run an organization with employees without being forced to violate your religion.

Playing Divide & Conquer Against the Church

In a headline on its website, CNN referred to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops as a "Catholic group". I'm afraid the USCCB is not just some Catholic group but is the conference of the US bishops.

Quick lesson about the largest religion in the US and in the world: In the Catholic Church, bishops are successors of the Apostles, represent Jesus Himself to their flock, and are the teaching, sacramental, and governing head of their diocese. The Catholic Church isn't like an ethnic or cultural group that only has unofficial leaders insofar as they represent the beliefs or values of the group; the Catholic Church is a real institution with legitimate, ordained leaders who rightfully teach, guide, and govern their flock. To use an example, Sister Carol Keehan, CEO of the Catholic Health Association of the United States, may be an influential Catholic layperson, but the bishops are the rightful leaders and representatives of the Catholic religion.

Washington Post columnist E.J.Dionne, a self identified "liberal Catholic", made the same error in a recent column: "Some conservative Catholics still insist that the relief from regulation that Obama offered is not enough." Left out, or at least not given any sort of special mention among those who have rejected Obama's offer, are the ones whose judgement matters most in the matter, the bishops - who, given that their teaching on a wide range of issues that does not comport fully with either the Democratic or Republican party, cannot be seriously boxed in as politically conservative.

Referring to the USCCB as just another Catholic group attempts to undermine the authority of the bishops in the Church and thereby divide the Catholic bishops from the Catholic faithful.

Another attempt to divide Catholic faithful from their bishops was evident in the frequent use by the White House and the news media of a statistic that claimed that 98% of Catholic women use contraception. Aside from the fact that the statistic is bogus (although it's undeniable that many Catholics do break this particular teaching of the Church), and aside from the fact that most of the Church's moral teachings are broken at some point or another by most people (e.g. how many Catholics have lied before or have not seriously put into practice the Church's teaching concerning the poor?), and aside from the fact that the whole purpose of moral teaching is to make us better people - not to give affirmation that however we happen to be living already is just fine - its rhetorical use is clear: since so many laypeople don't listen to the bishops, the bishops can be sidelined.

Archbishop of NY Timothy Dolan,
also President of the USCCB

It was also apparent that such a political strategy was behind the fact that Obama secured support for his proposed accommodation from Catholic laypeople like Sister Carol Keehan and columnist E.J. Dionne before his announcement, while he only called Archbishop Timothy Dolan (president of the USCCB) the morning of the announcement to tell him that the announcement of an "accommodation" was coming, along with a little description of what the "accommodation" would be. The US Catholic bishops were given so few details before what was supposed to be an accommodation of their own Church was publicly announced that the initial press release of the USCCB after the announcement quoted Archbishop Timothy Dolan as saying: "While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them." Several hours later, the USCCB issued a more thorough press release that rejected Obama's proposed accommodation, but it still noted: "We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral." It's clear that Obama was not intending to engage with the bishops.

Phil Lawler over at CatholicCulture.org also came to the same conclusion:

Now that Sister Keehan has endorsed the Obama “compromise” (along with Father Larry Snyder of Catholic Charities USA), the Obama administration can claim that many Catholics, including some who had originally opposed the plan, now see the wisdom of his ways. President Obama does not intend to persuade the American bishops to support his proposal; he intends to siphon off support for the bishops among American Catholic voters, driving a political wedge further into the country’s Catholic community.

No doubt, many Catholic faithful in the US openly and regularly dissent from their bishops as well as from the Pope - a sad testament to the state of the Church here in the US. But to exploit internal divisions in the Church for political gain is low.

The Rhetoric of Confusion

Also notice below the CNN headline that Obama's offer is referred to as "Obama's compromise", not as the "offer" that it really was. Many other news agencies reported Obama's offer in a similar fashion (e.g. Reuters: "Obama's compromise sought to accommodate religious organizations") Calling it a "compromise" implies that the parties with whom Obama had the disagreement have accepted it, even though the very article in which the phrase is being used is about how the US bishops have rejected it.

In other words, a compromise is a compromise only if both sides accept it as such. One side cannot declare something to be a compromise if the other side hasn't responded, much less if the other side has rejected the deal. To say that the deal is a compromise in such circumstances is a rhetorical tool to get the public to think that the controversy is over and that therefore any continued protest is unreasonable. It's like a politician publicly declaring victory in an election before the results are conclusive: it serves only to confuse and manipulate for one's own political advantage, not to accurately describe the situation. Of course, Obama used the word "accommodation", but the same problem remains: an accommodation is an accommodation only if the other side considers it to be an accommodation.

Although the bishops had led the charge against the HHS mandates and are the rightful leaders and representatives of the Catholic Church, Obama's offer was labeled a "compromise" and an "accommodation" before the bishops even had the details of what the offer was.

Other Nonsense

In a piece entitled "Catholic church demanding yet another financial advantage", Mario Salazar over at the Washington Times trotted out the old stereotype that the Catholic Church is really just in it for the money, and that in this case the Catholic Church is just trying to save a few bucks by not covering abortifacient drugs, sterilization procedures, and contraception.

Amanda Marcotte over at Slate's "XX Factor" section, a section that has the subtitle "What Women Really Think", wrote that the controversy has simply been "two solid weeks of Republicans rapidly escalating attacks on contraception access" that's been "all thinly disguised as concern for religious liberty". Again, as with the NY Times, she's either woefully ignorant or being intentionally deceitful of who has been fighting the HHS mandates (primarily religious leaders, led mostly by the US bishops - not Republican lawmakers), what the real concerns have been (yes, religious freedom is the primary concern), and how long it's been going on (6 months not 2 weeks).

The Bishops' Response

The USCCB explains why they have rejected Obama's proposed accommodation, in their press release responding to Obama's announcement of his proposed accommodation

The USCCB's Conscience Protection webpage

Currently, there is a great video on the homepage of the USCCB website of Archbishop Timothy Dolan responding to the White House

Other Responses

A letter rejecting Obama's proposed accommodation that's being circulated and signed by university professors, university presidents, and journalists (signed by 118 at my last count)

Obama to Face Lawsuit From Attorneys General Over Mandate

Several evangelical leaders reject Obama's "accommodation" as still not enough

An analysis of Obama's proposed accommodation: "President Obama, the Right Not to Do Wrong, and the Politics of Ruse and Delay"

The mealtime prayer to end abortion that's going to take over the world

2012-02-09T17:48:00.000-06:00

I just wanted to share something small that our family has been doing for a little while now.

Before every meal, after thanking God for the food, we add this short prayer:

We pray for an end to all threats to human life and dignity, especially abortion.

That's it. Pretty simple. This has been a great habit for us for a few reasons:

First, it keeps us praying for an end to abortion, and all other attacks to human life and dignity, every day, several times a day.

Second, in our every day life we do not actually see these injustices occurring, so the prayer serves as a reminder to us that these injustices exist.

Third, it encourages us to do something to correct these injustices.

If you think it's a good idea, start doing it yourself, and then pass it on to your friends. Just imagine what could happen if every Christian in the country added this to their mealtime prayers...

I'm 24 today & I'm an abortion survivor (with my baby pictures!)

2012-02-06T13:04:00.000-06:00

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." - Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League which is now known as Planned Parenthood, in her 1922 book Woman and the New Race [Source]

My parents never considered it, not even for a second.

But our family's pediatrician recommended it, "You're almost forty and already have four kids, maybe you should terminate this one."

My mother, a devout protestant Christian from her childhood, was shocked and upset, but thankfully unfazed: "Umm no, I plan on keeping him." When she recounted the story back at home, my 13 year old brother echoed my mother's sentiment, "Don't kill our baby."

I'm the baby there, with my parents
Lloyd and Karen, and my siblings
Lisa, Eric, Jeff, and Colleen

My mom was 39 soon to be 40, my dad was 44, they already had four children - one of which was starting her senior year of high school and wanting to go to college soon after that - and they hadn't had a new baby for six years.

In addition, it was 1987, the stock market had plummeted, and since my father was a financial adviser, my family's income had plummeted with it. My mother also worked part-time as a nurse at our local hospital, and I've been told that, on our way out of the hospital after I had been born, my mother picked up her paycheck and deposited it in the bank on the drive home - and that it was all the money my parents had in their bank account at that time.

But I wasn't an accident. Though my parents were protestant and were never taught to have any reservations about contraception, my mother's conscience had told her early on in her marriage that it wasn't right. And though she tried the Pill for the first six months of her marriage to my dad (and stopped because of the way that it affected her emotionally), from then on she felt compelled to be open to as many children as God gave her. She's since told me, "I felt it was wrong to waste the Millegan seed".

The pediatrician had been a great doctor for our family, but my parents didn't know if he could be my doctor since he had recommended that I be killed. My mother mentioned her concern to another doctor in his office, who relayed her concern to him. The pediatrician, who was an otherwise very nice man, met with my mother and apologized, and my parents decided to stay with him.

Many of my peers weren't so lucky. The same year I was born, 1988, 26% of pregnancies in the US ended in abortion: 1,371,285 of my future classmates were killed by their parents instead of lovingly accepted as I was (the 4th highest number of abortions in one year in US history, surpassed only in 1989, 1990, & 1991; 1990 had the highest number). [Sources: 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991]

Me, my next older sibling
Colleen, and my younger
brother Patrick

Not only did my parents lovingly and generously accept me, they went on to give me a younger brother two and half years later!

Needless to say, the pediatrician didn't bring up abortion this time (though one of our relatives reacted negatively, "Now that's too many"). He continued to be our family doctor for the rest of my childhood and was a very caring, patient, and warm person (and helped me personally through some serious problems in middle and high school).

So today, on my 24th birthday, I thank my parents. In our culture of death where the most weak and vulnerable human life is disposable, children are a liability and an inconvenience, and where a quick fix is safe, legal, but sadly very common, I thank my parents for their generosity, open arms, and ceaseless love to me and all of my siblings. I thank my parents for trusting God and always putting the needs of their children ahead of their own. I thank my parents for giving me the gift of life.

Thanks Mom and Dad!

I'm tired of religious people serving the poor

2012-02-03T13:57:00.000-06:00

Regarding all of the HHS mandates hub-bub, Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones had this to say:

I'm just a big ol' secular lefty, so I guess it's natural that I'd disagree [with the Catholic Church]. And I do. I guess I'm tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools), hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars — and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy.

So Kevin Drum is upset - in fact he says he's tired of it - that Catholics have opened hospitals and schools to serve all people regardless of religion and that they have been willing to work with people of all faiths. (He also mentions "taking taxpayer dollars", but he's wrong: the HHS mandates apply to all organizations whether they accept federal money or not. For more, see my NOTE at the end.)

...I guess I'm looking for the bad part there. Isn't it an incredibly good thing that Catholics have been voluntarily serving our communities, and that they will join with people of all faiths?

Dorothy Day meets Mother Teresa;
Kevin Drum is tired of people like them

How many times have I heard non-Christians complain that Christians don't practice what they preach, or that they're too close-minded, or need to recognize that non-Christians can be good too, etc? The Catholic Church for centuries has been voluntarily setting up privately operated hospitals, schools, and charitable organizations that will serve anyone, has been voluntarily willing to hire and work with non-Catholics who wish to join in the Catholic organization's mission and who voluntarily choose to work for them, and has been serving anyone in the community who wants to benefit from their services.

And Kevin Drum is tired of it!

When I was growing up, even though we were not Catholic (we were Protestant), and even though they had to pay private school tuition on top of the taxes they pay for public schools, my parents determined that it was better for me (and eventually my younger brother) to go to the local private Catholic schools rather than to what they saw as deteriorating public schools. I went to Catholic schools 1st through 12th grade, received a great education, and was very involved in lots of school activities - without the fact that I wasn't Catholic ever being a problem at all.

My family was not "tired" of the Catholic Church giving us a private alternative, we were grateful. And instead of complaining that the Catholics schools that my parents voluntarily sent me to were Catholic, we understood and were respectful of the fact that the schools were Catholic. Instead of expecting that the Catholic schools - to which my parents were, with full knowledge, voluntarily sending me and my younger brother - to change their beliefs, we were grateful that they were willing to accept and accommodate non-Catholics, which they did graciously and thoughtfully. Of course, I always had religion class, prayed before meals, and went to school Masses, but we knew that going in, the school was aware and respectful of the fact that there were non-Catholic students, and I was never forced to believe or do anything that that went against my family's religion ever.

Where I went for grades
1st through 8th

We all - people of all faiths or no faith at all - should be incredibly grateful to the Catholic Church for all the ways that she serves our country, and has for years! Catholic leaders should be receiving awards, not ultimatums.

The federal government, particularly a presidential administration run by Democrats who claim to care so much about the poor and who supposedly hold tolerance so highly, should be doing everything it can to accommodate all of these Catholic institutions that are voluntarily serving our communities (and often times in ways that are much more effective and efficient than government programs, i.e. why my parents sent me to private Catholic schools instead of public schools)! I'm not saying that the government needs to be sending dump trucks full of taxpayer money to them, but they should in the very least not be making policies that force these institutions to violate their religion - the same religion that has inspired them to do so much for our country, far more than any other religious or secular group.

Really, the irrationality displayed here is so astounding and the bigotry so obvious - what could make people be so blind? Kevin Drum gave his own explanation: "I'm just a big ol' secular lefty".

It would be too easy to to take this as an opportunity to attack secular liberalism. No doubt, Christians have been blinded sometimes too. I just hope that the trumpeters of tolerance and pluralism soon realize that they are being wildly inconsistent and correct the situation - that's all we ask.

If you believe in religious tolerance and freedom:

Please sign the official online White House petition asking for the HHS mandate policy to be changed.

Please contact the President directly as well.

Please contact your representative in the House of Representatives.

Please contact your Senators.

Lastly, here's a page on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website with a lot of information regarding the whole situation.

*NOTE: Kevin Drum also mentioned "taking taxpayer dollars", but he's wrong: the mandates apply to your organization whether or not you accept any federal money, so the "taking taxpayer dollars" is a red herring. But for cases in which some of these organizations do accept federal money, and I am no expert in these matters, at least one commentator has said that that would include Catholic hospitals accepting patients who are on Medicare. So a Catholic hospital will help a poor person whose medical care is paid for by the government. That's a good thing, and hardly counts as "funding" in any normal sense of the term. But honestly, I do not know the ins and outs of these types of things, so if anyone does know more, please explain in the comments.

What the Catholic Church Does (and what the HHS mandates seek to thwart)

2012-02-01T13:34:00.000-06:00

Below are some quick stats on what the Catholic Church does to serve people in the US. The services of these organizations are open to the public and serve whoever is in need regardless of their religious beliefs (I myself went to Catholic school for 12 years as Protestant). Depending on the organization and its specific mission, most will hire and employ a person of any religious beliefs who wants to serve the mission of the organization.

The federal government will soon be requiring almost all* of these organizations (excepting parishes) to violate their religious beliefs to continue functioning. Anyone who cares about tolerance, religious liberty, or even simply cares about the poor should be very concerned and should contact their representative in the House and their representatives in the Senate. There is also an official online petition on the White House website that is taking signatures.

5774 elementary schools serving 1,467,694 students (current) [Source]
1206 secondary schools serving 598,178 students (current) [Source]
244 colleges and universities (current) [Source]

This includes schools such as the University of Notre Dame, Georgetown University, Boston College, Loyola Marymount University, and Fordham University (complete list)

3301 local Catholic Charities offices provided services to 10,270,292 people in 2010 [Source]

services include food pantries, soup kitchens, home delivered meals, counseling, housing, clothing, assistance with utilities, assistance with prescription drugs, services related to addiction, pregnancy, adoption, immigration, refugees, education, at-risk populations, and other services

629 hospitals (as of 2010) [Source]

represents 12.6% of community hospitals
received 15.6% of all hospital admissions
5,512,632 admissions

235 residential homes for children (orphanages) serving 50,264 young people (in 2005) [Source]
135 other national Catholic lay organizations serve the Church and their local communities [Source]

The Society of St Vincent de Paul served 15 million people (in 2002)
Knights of Columbus raised $139,711,619 for charity (in 2005)

Hundreds of other local Catholic lay organizations serve the Church and their local communities [Source]
18,992 parishes (as of 2006) also serve their local communities in incalculable ways [Source]

*While it seems to be pretty clear that parishes would be exempted from the new rules, it's not entirely clear how all other Catholic organizations would fare. It would depend on the organization, who they employ, what their mission is exactly. However, it is clear that it would effect most of the organizations listed here.

The Numbers May Shock You...

2012-01-30T11:22:00.000-06:00

The purpose of these numbers is not to belittle any of the atrocities listed below, for the death of any innocent person is a tragedy. Instead, the numbers are given to help give perspective on size and scope.

25 million - worldwide HIV-related deaths since start of outbreak to 2009 [Source]
5.9 million - Jews killed in the Holocaust [Source]
5 million - non-Jews killed in the Holocaust [Source]
3 million - deaths related to the Crusades from 1095-1291 [Source]
2.5 million - US military dead and wounded from all US wars combined [Source]
2.5 million - deaths from the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia [Source]
2.4 million - deaths by any cause in the US in 2009 (excepting abortion) [Source]
1.5 million - deaths from human sacrifice by Aztecs 1300-1521 [Source]
1 million - deaths in the Soviet Gulag from 1934-1953 [Source]
800,000 - deaths in Rwandan genocide [Source]
230,000 - deaths in 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami [Source]
145,000 - immediate deaths from atomic bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki [Source]
5,000 - number executed by the Spanish Inquisition from 1560-1700 [Source]
4,743 - number of lynchings in US from 1882-1968 [Source]
2,996 - deaths in September 11th, 2011 terrorist attacks [Source]
1,278 - number of executions (capital punishment) in the US since 1976 [Source]
916 - deaths from SARS worldwide from November 2002 to August 2003 [Source]
25 - deaths from Salem Witch Trials [Source]

49,989,958 - TOTAL of all the above

50,000,000 - abortions in the US from 1973-2008 [Source]
43,800,000 - abortions worldwide in 2008 alone [Source]

Lord have mercy.

An Unwanted Change in the Abortion Debate?

2012-01-05T16:47:00.001-06:00

Fetus at approx. 14 weeks gestational age

A simple argument against abortion can be given as follows:

(1) It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human life.
(2) A human fetus/embryo is innocent, human, and alive.
(3) Therefore, it is always wrong to intentionally kill a human fetus/embryo.
(4) Abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus/embryo.
(5) Therefore, abortion is always wrong.

Until fairly recently, my exposure to abortion debate had given me the impression that most people who were pro-choice rejected premise (2).

In the last few weeks, I've had two separate discussion with old-time friends from high school regarding abortion, both of whom are pro-choice (at least partially).

The first friend rejected premise (1), specifically the word "human". She argued that the level of consciousness of which a particular organism was capable, and not the species of that particular organism, determined the morality of taking the life of another organism. In other words, the fact that a human fetus/embryo is human isn't as relevant as the fact that, at least in early stages, the human fetus/embryo isn't conscious at all or seems to have a very low level of consciousness. The more conscious a particular organism is, whatever it's species may be, the more wrong it is to intentionally kill it. Humans are not protected so much as consciousness is, wherever it is found. So, for example, intentionally killing an adult chimpanzee is more wrong than to intentionally kill a human fetus since an adult chimpanzee seems much more conscious than a human fetus.

Interestingly, as a result, this person held that it was wrong to kill human fetuses in the third trimester, since they seem to her to have a high enough level of consciousness. This person was even willing to admit that she wasn't certain in her assessment that it would be morally permissible to intentionally kill an early stage human fetus and that as a result she would never get an abortion herself, although she believed that other people should have the legal right to do so.

The second friend also rejected premise (1), but specifically the word "always". He did so on the basis that, while it is normally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human life, he thought there could be exceptions. In the case of abortion, he said that he thought that the hardship and suffering of the mother and others involved could be sufficient to make the killing of the innocent human fetus/embryo morally permissible. When asked if he thought there were other exceptions to premise (1), he first confirmed his utilitarianism:

"As [to] other exceptions to the principle of unkillable innocence I suppose [it] would be any situation where the inaction resulted in greater harm."

He then indicated that he thought there could possibly be situations in war where it would be morally permissible to intentionally kill innocent civilians, and concluded that

"the fact that at least 2 valid situations exist implies there may be more."

I am not intending to single out or mock in any way these two particular people, both of whom are thoughtful people, and with both of whom I have had cordial conversations. And to be fair, these discussions were in Facebook comments and messages, and so don't necessarily represent these two individuals' best, well-thought-out, carefully crafted ideas.

But I think we can see a general sentiment: They believe that it is not always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human life.

And my friends are not alone. Read what these two educated, well thought out, pro-choice thinkers have to say:

Peter Singer has written:

"[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."

Christopher Hitchens, who was pro-choice, admits:

"As the evidence about early “viability” mounted, and as advances in medicine made it ever easier for even a distressingly premature fetus to survive outside its mother, the [abortion] argument showed a tendency to shift. Suddenly, we were talking trimesters. And there was no longer much dispute about whether the unborn subject was alive. It certainly couldn’t be dead, since the whole battle consisted in how or whether to stop its growing and developing (not metastasizing). Now and then there would be a tussle over whether it was a fully “human” life, but this was casuistry. What other species of life could it be? Some states even announced laws on fetal personhood, conferring the moral equivalent of citizenship on every fertilized egg, thereby presumably extending to it the warm embrace of the equal-protection clause and voting rights at age 17¼.

"That the most partially formed human embryo is both human and alive has now been confirmed, in an especially vivid sense, by the new debate over stem-cell research and the bioethics of cloning. If an ailing or elderly person can be granted a new lease on life by a transfusion of this cellular material, then it is obviously not random organic matter. The original embryonic “blastocyst” may be a clump of 64 to 200 cells that is only five days old. But all of us began our important careers in that form, and every needful encoding for life is already present in the apparently inchoate. We are the first generation to have to confront this as a certain knowledge. [...] By rightly expanding our definition of what is alive and what is human, we have also accepted that there may be a conflict of rights between a potential human and an actual one."

I have no statistics regarding the reasons given by those who are pro-choice as to why abortion is permissible (if you do, please let me know in the comments), and so I have no idea whether the sentiments from the examples given above are new or old, widespread or fringe (or somewhere in between). But these four examples, two from recent personal anecdotes, and two from highly acclaimed thinkers, should give us pause. A basic moral principle, via abortion, has been cracked.

Is abortion really being defended by saying that it's not always wrong to intentionally kill any innocent human life?

If it's not always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human life, then it's not always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human life. Think about that. Is this really a principle that we want to reject? Its application in the intentional killing of millions of young humans should offer sufficient horror. But if it doesn't, its necessary rejection as a basic moral principle, applicable in situations far beyond abortion, should.

This is not a slippery slope argument. I am not bundling otherwise unconnected issues and declaring without reason that if you accept one you have to accept the other. I am pointing out that a principle is being rejected. If that principle is rejected, there are consequences far beyond the first context that it is rejected. Its rejection affects any other context in which the original principle was relevant.

If, as my first friend argued, a human's life only gains protection when it acquires certain capabilities, such as consciousness, how much of that capability is needed? How is it measured? Who makes the determination? What other capabilities might a human need in order to be protected? We can't put further conditions on humanity.

If, as my second friend argued, an innocent human life can be sacrificed for the good of the more powerful (if the killers weren't more powerful, they wouldn't be able to kill) in one context, there's no principled reason why an innocent human life couldn't be sacrificed for the good of the more powerful in another context. To say that the principle would only apply to abortion would be ad hoc. And my second friend admitted as much: "the fact that at least 2 valid situations exist implies there may be more."

'There may be more.'

Lord have mercy.

A Rousing Christmas Sermon from the 5th century Pope St Leo the Great

2011-12-23T08:40:00.000-06:00

Pope St Leo the Great, Sermon 21, "On the Feast of the Nativity, I", (mid 5th century):

Our Saviour, dearly-beloved, was born today: let us be glad!

For there is no proper place for sadness, when we keep the birthday of the Life, which destroys the fear of mortality and brings to us the joy of promised eternity. No one is kept from sharing in this happiness. There is for all one common measure of joy, because as our Lord the destroyer of sin and death finds none free from charge, so is He come to free us all.

Let the saint exult in that he draws near to victory. Let the sinner be glad in that he is invited to pardon. Let the gentile take courage in that he is called to life. For the Son of God in the fullness of time which the inscrutable depth of the Divine counsel has determined, has taken on him the nature of man, thereby to reconcile it to its Author: in order that the inventor of death, the devil, might be conquered through that (nature) which he had conquered.

And in this conflict undertaken for us, the fight was fought on great and wondrous principles of fairness; for the Almighty Lord enters the lists with His savage foe not in His own majesty but in our humility, opposing him with the same form and the same nature, which shares indeed our mortality, though it is free from all sin. Truly foreign to this nativity is that which we read of all others, no one is clean from stain, not even the infant who has lived but one day upon earth [Job 19:4]. Nothing therefore of the lust of the flesh has passed into that peerless nativity, nothing of the law of sin has entered.

A royal Virgin of the stem of David is chosen, to be impregnated with the sacred seed and to conceive the Divinely-human offspring in mind first and then in body. And lest in ignorance of the heavenly counsel she should tremble at so strange a result , she learns from converse with the angel that what is to be wrought in her is of the Holy Ghost. Nor does she believe it loss of honour that she is soon to be the Mother of God. For why should she be in despair over the novelty of such conception, to whom the power of the most High has promised to effect it. Her implicit faith is confirmed also by the attestation of a precursory miracle, and Elizabeth receives unexpected fertility: in order that there might be no doubt that He who had given conception to the barren, would give it even to a virgin.

Therefore the Word of God, Himself God, the Son of God who in the beginning was with God, through whom all things were made and without whom was nothing made [John 1:1-3], with the purpose of delivering man from eternal death, became man: so bending Himself to take on Him our humility without decrease in His own majesty, that remaining what He was and assuming what He was not, He might unite the true form of a slave to that form in which He is equal to God the Father, and join both natures together by such a compact that the lower should not be swallowed up in its exaltation nor the higher impaired by its new associate. Without detriment therefore to the properties of either substance which then came together in one person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the paying off of the debt, belonging to our condition, inviolable nature was united with possible nature, and true God and true man were combined to form one Lord, so that, as suited the needs of our case, one and the same Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, could both die with the one and rise again with the other.

Pope St Leo the Great

Rightly therefore did the birth of our Salvation impart no corruption to the Virgin's purity, because the bearing of the Truth was the keeping of honor. Such then beloved was the nativity which became the Power of God and the Wisdom of God even Christ, whereby He might be one with us in manhood and surpass us in Godhead. For unless He were true God, He would not bring us a remedy, unless He were true Man, He would not give us an example. Therefore the exulting angel's song when the Lord was born is this, Glory to God in the Highest, and their message, peace on earth to men of good will [Luke 2:14] . For they see that the heavenly Jerusalem is being built up out of all the nations of the world: and over that indescribable work of the Divine love how ought the humbleness of men to rejoice, when the joy of the lofty angels is so great?

Let us then, dearly beloved, give thanks to God the Father, through His Son, in the Holy Spirit , Who for His great mercy, wherewith He has loved us, has had pity on us: and when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together in Christ [Ephesians 2:4-5], that we might be in Him a new creation and a new production. Let us put off then the old man with his deeds: and having obtained a share in the birth of Christ let us renounce the works of the flesh. Christian, acknowledge your dignity, and becoming a partner in the Divine nature, refuse to return to the old baseness by degenerate conduct. Remember the Head and the Body of which you are a member. Recollect that you were rescued from the power of darkness and brought out into God's light and kingdom. By the mystery of Baptism you were made the temple of the Holy Ghost: do not put such a denizen to flight from you by base acts, and subject yourself once more to the devil's thraldom: because your purchase money is the blood of Christ, because He shall judge you in truth Who ransomed you in mercy, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit reigns for ever and ever.

Amen.

PrayerRequest: Presbyterian Elder Wants to Become Catholic

2011-12-19T12:03:00.000-06:00

This last week I received this email:

Brantly,

I came across your website: Young, Evangelical, and Catholic. I really appreciated it. I'm middle-aged, Evangelical, and - in the past few years- have come to a catholic perspective on my faith. The liturgy of the hours has been the foundation of my daily devotional life since 2004, I "pray" the 20 mysteries of rosary each week, I take part in Eucharistic adoration each week at the Newman Center at the university I teach at.

I love the catholic faith. However, I'm an elder in my Presbyterian church, and my wife reacted with absolute horror and anguish when I told her of my interest in Catholicism. She literally cried for almost a week. Yet I also find my fellowship with my evangelical brothers stimulating and encouraging, even life changing.

So for now I'm kind of in a spiritual no-man's land. At adoration, I remember the Syrophoenician woman, pray a sincere act of contrition, and ask that Christ would come spiritually into my heart. One day I hope to enter full-communion with the Catholic church with my wife.

God bless you and your journey and service to him.

And he also had this to say in a follow up email in our conversation:

I spoke with a gentleman from Opus Dei and the chaplain at the Newman Center. They both advised/agreed with backing off - for now - with entering full communion as quickly as possible. The Newman Center chaplain also said advised not to get too comfortable with "spiritual communion and absolution."

This morning's rosary was the joyful mysteries. Elizabeth's words - " And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" - struck me especially today personally. How does this happen that the mother of my Lord should come to me - a stanch evangelical who was utterly convinced that prayers to Mary and the saints were idolatry?

It is my prayers to Mary that are the most distressing to my wife. She calls them idolatry, as once I would have, too.

Please pray for this person and this person's family and church! (Wouldn't it be great if he could pull an Alex Jones?)

As many of you out there know, stories like this are not uncommon. Over the course of my blog, I have received several emails like this. Those of you who were born Catholic should be grateful for the gift that you have. When I was considering Catholicism, one Protestant pastor I spoke to who said he believed the Catholic Church to be "the fullest manifestation of God's Church on earth", encouraged me to join while I was still young: "Do it now. It'll only get harder the older you get."

One reason is of course because the longer a person lives as a Protestant, the more their life becomes entrenched in Protestant social structures. And that's on top of the fact that, even if someone becomes convinced of the Catholic faith, actually joining the Church can be quite a culture shock that can require a significant shift in one's thinking, and that can take time (I know it did for me!).

But to those of you who are Protestant clergy/pastors who have been led in your heart to Christ's Catholic Church: know that you are not alone! There are many other people out there like you and many resources to help.

Here's at least one: The Coming Home Network is organization that supports Protestants clergy/pastors who want to become Catholic with resources about the faith, job postings, and a community to help you through the transition.

Another great resource is Called to Communion, whose writers are all converts to Catholicism from the Reformed tradition, many of them clergy/pastors.

Apostolic succession is orthodox, and its denial always heresy - until Protestants come along?

2011-11-21T15:43:00.001-06:00

Christ's Charge to Peter

Evangelicals reject the doctrines of apostolic authority and succession. This is of great consequence since (1) it's regarding the constitution of the Church itself and (2) if they are wrong in this rejection, evangelicals have rejected the Church established by Jesus himself.

I have a challenge for evangelicals:
Find one example of a Christian group, or even a single individual, in the first 1000 years of the faith who rejected apostolic authority and succession.

Ok, so that's actually pretty easy. Any student of early Church history knows that there were lots of groups that rejected apostolic authority and succession, e.g. the Montanists, Manicheans, etc. They all had on thing in common: every single one of them would be considered heretical by evangelicals (as well as by Catholics).

So here's my real challenge for evangelicals:
Find one example of an orthodox group or individual in the first 1000 years of the faith that rejected apostolic authority and succession. (I'll allow you to define what's orthodox pretty much however you want, assuming here that the definition would be in the ballpark of what most evangelicals believe today.)

To my knowledge, there is not a single group, not even a single individual, of which we have any historical record in the first 1000 years after Christ who rejected apostolic authority and succession and was not heretical by the standards of evangelicals. Not a single one.

The answer as to why this was the case is also an easy one for any student of early Church history: Every single orthodox Christian believed that apostolic authority and succession was instituted by Jesus, that the successors were guided by the Holy Spirit, and that therefore any teaching that went against the teaching of the apostolic Church must be wrong. In other words, apostolic authority and succession was the means by which orthodoxy was distinguished from heterodoxy. (To be clear, it's not that orthodoxy is made to be true because the bishops taught it. Instead, the bishops, because of their Holy Spirit guided authority, teach the truth - and do so infallibly under certain conditions, e.g. ecumenical council, etc.)

St Paul writing

The authority of the Apostles in the nascent Church is obvious in the New Testament (e.g. all of the Epistles, Acts 15; see Without Our Authorization). The passing on of authority to successors is also evident in the NT (e.g. Acts 1.1-25, 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, Titus 2.15, 2 Timothy 2.2, 1 Timothy 4.11, 14, etc). To see how this played out, let's take an example from the 2nd century:

Among those groups that claimed to be Christian, there were two main groups.
(1) There were those who followed the bishops, which claimed to have authority in the Church passed down in succession from the apostles themselves (see the quote at the end of this post, and The Early Church was Catholic: Apostolic Succession and Authority). Their beliefs and worship practices were early forms of modern day Catholic beliefs and practices (e.g. the Mass as sacrifice, real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, veneration of saints and relics, baptism necessary for salvation, etc; for more, see How Quickly Catholic Heresy Took Over the Church).

(2) There were those who denied that the bishops had authority in the Church from the apostles, but still wanted to follow Christ. These people populated innumerable groups with a wide range of different beliefs, most of which are usually referred to simply as Gnostics, and are considered heretical by evangelicals and Catholics.

Evangelicals must hold that this situation - in which the orthodox were always those following the bishops with authority from the apostles, and the heretics were always those that denied it - continued until the 16th century when innumerable groups with a wide range of different beliefs, most of which are usually referred to simply as Protestants, began denying apostolic authority and succession like all heretics before them...but this time it was somehow okay to do so.

Or maybe it wasn't.

Maybe denying apostolic authority and succession was heresy in the 1st through 15th centuries, and was also heresy in the 16th-21st centuries.

Or put another way, the precedent for breaking off from the bishops and denying apostolic authority and succession is found only among heretics.

St Irenaeus

The great 2nd century Church father St Irenaeus - himself a bishop as well as a disciple of St Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, and is looked to as a great orthodox theologian by Catholics and evangelicals alike - appeals not only to apostolic authority and succession as a main argument against the Gnostic heretics, but he appeals specifically to the authority of the church at Rome (below is a long quote, but it's worth it):

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
(Against Heresies, III.3.1-3)

How Quickly Catholic Heresy Took Over the Church (Immediately) [Updated]

2011-11-08T13:57:00.001-06:00

UPDATED: After having interacted with a few people over the original post, I have added "A.D. 110 - the necessity of bishops to the Church, and the necessity of submitting to bishops" to the list of dates and the supporting quotes from St Ignatius of Antioch, as well as 3 more paragraphs of comments, and adjusted the order of my comments. The original post is still up.
________________________________

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch 2 (~A.D. 200):

Pentecost

“That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date.”

Below is a list of the year of the earliest (of which I am aware) extant extra-biblical witness of various Christian doctrines.

(A.D. 33 - death and resurrection of Christ)
A.D. 90 - the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice
(A.D. 95 - death of the last apostle, John)
A.D. 95 - apostolic succession
A.D. 110 - real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
A.D. 110 - the necessity of bishops to the Church, and the necessity of submitting to bishops
A.D. 150 - baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism for salvation
A.D. 150 - basic structure of the Mass as Christian worship
A.D. 155 - veneration of saints and their relics
A.D. 160 - Mary as the New Eve
A.D. 170 - use of the word 'Trinity'
A.D. 180 - primacy of the bishop of Rome
A.D. 200 - 'Trinity', 'Person', 'Substance' formula
A.D. 367 - today's 27 book New Testament canon
(A.D. 1500s - Protestant Reformation)

(Note: Those that are (underlined) are relevant events to help put the other dates in perspective. Those doctrines in bold are accepted by evangelicals and Catholics and are also listed for the purpose of helping to put the other dates in perspective. Those doctrines not bolded are accepted by Catholics and are rejected by most evangelicals as corruptions of the faith. All dates listed are of course approximate. The quotes showing the witness to these doctrines in those years are at the end of this post.)

I have ten comments:

1) Since it doesn't appear as though any of the authors are proposing a new doctrine in any of the quotes, it can be assumed that all of these doctrines in the very least pre-date by some amount of time their first extant extra-biblical witness. It should be noted that in some cases, the authors were contemporaries of the apostles and most likely knew some of the apostles themselves, e.g. St Clement, who was the bishop of Rome at the end of the 1st century and is traditionally identified with the Clement referred to by Paul in Philippians 4.3. And in other cases, the authors knew disciples of the apostles, e.g. St Irenaeus was a disciple of St Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

2) All of the Catholic beliefs listed were maintained from the early Church onward. In other words, I’m not citing anomalies in the early Church and recommending that Catholics should revive them. Catholics have maintained these beliefs/practices since then without a break. Neither am I implying that these beliefs do not have a basis in Scripture. These quotes are merely the first extant extra-biblical witnesses of the doctrines.

3) Remember that evangelicals claim that all of those Catholic beliefs listed above were all invented and did not come from the apostles, even though the Christians immediately following the apostles, including some who knew the apostles personally, thought that those doctrines came from the apostles. In particular, regarding apostolic succession, St Clement - who, as stated above, was surely a contemporary of the apostles and may have also known them personally - explicitly states that apostolic succession was set up by the apostles.

4) Notice the large number of doctrines/practices that are rejected by most evangelicals as Catholic corruptions of the faith that are witnessed to prior to explicit development of the doctrine of the Trinity or even the first extant witness to the 27 book New Testament canon. In other words, if all of those beliefs which most evangelicals tend to view as sure markers of the obviously perverted corruption of the Catholic Church were already there, then the same Church that settled the New Testament canon and fought the Trinitarian and Christological fights of the early Church was already well immersed in corruption, superstition, and heresy.

St Athanasius, bishop of
Alexandria, who was ban-
ished five times by the gov't
for preaching the teachings
of the Council of Nicea
regarding the Trinity

5) Ironically, those issues that evangelicals claim to be obvious corruptions of the faith were accepted throughout the early Church with relatively little dissent*. And it was on issues like the New Testament canon and the doctrine of the Trinity - two issues on which evangelicals agree with the early Church - that had the most widespread disagreement and dissent. The confusion/dissent regarding these two issues was so widespread and entrenched that they were only settled for the whole Church when the bishops of the Church wielded their authority from apostolic succession - the same authority who's existence evangelicals deny. In other words, those beliefs for which apostolic authority was not needed to be well established in the Church, evangelicals reject; whereas those beliefs for which apostolic authority was needed to establish them within the Church, evangelicals accept, even though evangelicals reject apostolic authority and succession.

6) If the Catholic beliefs listed here warranted schism in the 16th century, then that means that the Church in the 2nd century already warranted schism. In other words, an evangelical who would justify the 16th century schism of the Reformers by citing these Catholic beliefs, must also hold that the Church by the end of the 2nd century - if not the end of the 1st century due to belief in apostolic succession - was already well corrupted to the point of warranting schism, and that the Church existed in that state, with little dissent on those beliefs which warranted schism, until it was saved in the 16th century.

7) If the Catholic beliefs listed here were truly innovations or corruptions of the faith, the Catholic Church therefore has not been receiving any help from the Holy Spirit in the maintenance of those beliefs. If that is the case, the Catholic Church is far and above the most successful heretic movement in the history of the Church. The Catholic Church has been so successful in promoting its heresy that, for the majority of Church history, it was the closest thing to true orthodoxy (though the little orthodoxy there was still deeply obscured). The Catholic Church, without the aid of the Holy Spirit - nay, with the Holy Spirit working against it - has maintained its corrupted beliefs with far more integrity and for far longer than any of the Protestant communities, which do claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit (for some, to the point of being able to determine, by simple illumination of the Holy Spirit, that the Bible in use for over a thousand years was wrong and that a canon that had never existed before was the correct one). Despite having such clear guidance from the Holy Spirit, the Protestant communities in their short 500 year history have splintered and changed beliefs to a virtually undocumentable degree. One need only look at evangelicals themselves: “on the matters of women’s ordination,abortion, contraception, divorce, eternal punishment, Chalcedonian formulation of the Incarnation, infant baptism, ecclesiology, the nature of God, and even the inerrancy of Scripture, Evangelicals have held a wide variety of views over the past fifty years, all of which are considered by many Evangelical scholars as well within the bounds of orthodoxy.” (Francis J. Beckwith, Mormonism, Catholicism, and the Romney Candidacy)

8) The evangelical must hold that all of this occurred despite the fact that Jesus himself promised to be "with [us] always, to the very end of the age," (Mt 28.20), that, since He would build His Church on the rock, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Mt 16.18), and that Jesus said he would send us the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of Truth” (John 14.16-17, John 15.26, John 16.13).

9) Modern evangelicals, in their rejection of those early Catholic beliefs are largely following traditions that started in the 16th century or later.

10) So, who is more likely to be closer to the original teaching of the Apostles? The Catholic Church, following the beliefs and practices of the early Christians who first received the teaching of the Apostles directly, or those who, 1500 years or more after the fact, reinterpreted the writings of the Apostles to mean things that Christians had never believed before and rule out as corruption and heresy those things that Christians had always believed/practiced from the very beginning?

The quotes themselves are below. In a few cases, if the earliest witness is not without any doubt stating the doctrine, then I've listed another early witness that is more clear.
____________________________________________________________

A.D. 90

Offering the Sacrifice of the Mass

The Lord's Supper as a Sacrifice
Didache, 14:

"But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. [Malachi 1.11,14]"

If the above is unclear:
A.D. 150
St Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 41:

"He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist"

A.D. 95
Apostolic Succession
St Clement, bishop of Rome, First Clement 42, 44 (for more, see The Early Church Was Catholic: Apostolic Succession and Authority):

"The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. [...] Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry."

A.D. 110
Necessity of Bishops to the Church
and Necessity of Submitting to Bishops
St Ignatius of Antioch, bishop of Antioch
Letter to the Ephesians, 3, 5

"For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ."

"...[you are] joined to [the bishop] as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! [...] He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, God resists the proud. Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God."

Letter to the Trallians, 3

"In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church."

Letter to the Philadelphians, 3

"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. [...] Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]."

A.D. 110
Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
St Ignatius of Antioch, bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6-7 (for more, see 1500 years of Gospel-compromising heresy and idolatry...or not):

"Let no man deceive himself. ...[I]f they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. [...] But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. [...] 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."

If the above is unclear::
A.D. 150
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 66:

"And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 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 by the Word of God, had both 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."

A.D. 150
Baptismal Regeneration (baptism is not merely symbolic)
and Baptism Necessary for Salvation
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 61, 66:

"Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. [John 3.3]"

"And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined."

If the necessity of baptism is unclear in the quotes above:
A.D. 200
Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:

"...the prescript is laid down that without baptism, salvation is attainable by none (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, Unless one be born of water, he has not life [John 3.5])"

A.D. 150
Basic structure of the Mass
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 67:

"[O]n the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons."

A.D. 155
Veneration of Saints and their Relics

Martyrdom of Polycarp

Author unknown, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 17 (for more, see Relics of Saints and the Early Church):

"[After Bishop Polycarp was martyed in a Roman stadium] But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said...being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!"

A.D. 160
Mary as the New Eve
St Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (for more, see Early Church Mariology: Mary as the New Eve):

"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.'"

A.D 170
Use of the word 'Trinity'
Theophilus, patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus to Autolycus 2.15:

"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man."

A.D. 180
Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
Some take the attitude and posture of St Clement, bishop of Rome, in his letter First Clement written around A.D. 95 to the church in Corinth as indicating an early understanding of the primacy of the bishop of Rome (see First Clement, 1, 58-59, 63). Some also see an indication of the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch circa A.D. 110 (see Letter to the Romans, 1, 3). The date listed above - A.D. 180 - is for the quote from St Irenaeus below. His is the first clearly explicit witness to the primacy of the bishop of Rome of which I am aware:

The crucifixion of St Peter

St Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.2:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition."

A.D. 200
'Trinity', 'Person', 'Substance' Formula
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 2:

"...especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds."

A.D. 367
27 book New Testament Canon

St Athanasius, Easter Letter of 367, 5:

"Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."

*Except perhaps with the primacy of the bishop of Rome, but the early dissent was small compared to the confusion/dissent regarding the Trinity and the New Testament canon. Major dissent regarding the role of the bishop of Rome came much later.

How Quickly Catholic Heresy Took Over the Church (Immediately)

2011-11-05T20:31:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: I have taken this post and expanded it, which you can find at "UPDATED: How Quickly Catholic Heresy Took Over the Church (Immediately)".
____________________________________________________

Pentecost

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch 2 (~A.D. 200):

That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date.

Below is a list of the year of the earliest (of which I am aware) extant extra-biblical witness of various Christian doctrines.

(A.D. 33 - death and resurrection of Christ)
A.D. 90 - the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice
(A.D. 95 - death of the last apostle, John)
A.D. 95 - apostolic succession
A.D. 110 - real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
A.D. 150 - baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism for salvation
A.D. 150 - basic structure of the Mass as Christian worship
A.D. 155 - veneration of saints and their relics
A.D. 160 - Mary as the New Eve
A.D. 170 - use of the word 'Trinity'
A.D. 180 - primacy of the bishop of Rome
A.D. 200 - 'Trinity', 'Person', 'Substance' formula
A.D. 367 - today's 27 book New Testament canon
(A.D. 1500s - Protestant Reformation)

(Note: Those that are (underlined) are relevant events to help put the other dates in perspective. Those doctrines in bold are accepted by evangelicals and Catholics and are also listed to help put the other dates in perspective. Those doctrines not bolded are accepted by Catholics and are rejected by most evangelicals as corruptions of the faith. All dates listed are of course approximate. The quotes showing the witness to these doctrines in those years are at the end of this post.)

I have seven comments:

1) Notice the large number of doctrines/practices that are rejected by most evangelicals as Roman Catholic corruptions of the faith that are witnessed to prior to explicit development of the doctrine of the Trinity or even the first extant witness to the 27 book New Testament canon. In other words, if all of those beliefs which most evangelicals tend to view as sure markers of the obviously perverted corruption of the Catholic Church were already there, then the same Church that settled the New Testament canon and fought the Trinitarian and Christological fights of the 4th century was already well immersed in corruption, superstition, and heresy.

2) Remember that evangelicals claim that all of those Catholic beliefs listed above - the Lord's Supper as sacrifice, apostolic succession, veneration of saints and their relics, etc - were all invented and did not come from the apostles, even though the Christians immediately following the apostles, including some who knew the apostles personally, did think that those doctrines came from the apostles.

St Athanasius, bishop of
Alexandria, who was ban-
ished five times by the gov't
for preaching the teachings
of the Council of Nicea
regarding the Trinity

3) Ironically, those issues that evangelicals claim to be obvious corruptions of the faith were accepted throughout the early Church with relatively little dissent*. And it was on issues like the New Testament canon and the doctrine of the Trinity - two issues on which evangelicals agree with the early Church - that had the most widespread disagreement and dissent. The confusion/dissent regarding these two issues was so widespread and entrenched that they were only settled for the whole Church when the bishops of the Church wielded their authority from apostolic succession - the same authority who's existence evangelicals deny.

4) As I stated in a previous post, the evangelical must hold that all of this occurred despite the fact that Jesus himself promised to be "with [us] always, to the very end of the age," (Mt 28.20) as well as that, since He would build His Church on the rock, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Mt 16.18).

5) Modern evangelicals, in their rejection of those early Catholic beliefs are largely following a tradition that started in the 16th century.

6) So, who is more likely to be closer to the original teaching of the Apostles? The Catholic Church, following the beliefs and practices of the early Christians who first received the teaching of the Apostles directly, or those who, 1500 years or more after the fact, reinterpreted the writings of the Apostles to mean things that Christians had never believed before and rule out as corruption and heresy those things that Christians had always believed/practiced from the very beginning?

7) Since it doesn't appear as though any of the authors are proposing a new doctrine in any of the quotes, it can be assumed that all of these doctrines in the very least pre-date by some amount of time their first extant historical witness. It should be noted that in some cases, the authors most likely knew some of the apostles themselves, e.g. St Clement, who was the bishop of Rome at the end of the 1st century and is traditionally identified with the Clement referred to by Paul in Philippians 4.3. And in other cases, the authors knew disciples of the apostles, e.g. St Irenaeus was a disciple of St Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

The quotes themselves are below. In a few cases, if the earliest witness is not without any doubt stating the doctrine, then I've listed another early quote that is more clear.
____________________________________________________________

A.D. 90
The Lord's Supper as a Sacrifice
Didache, 14:

Offering the Sacrifice of the Mass
"But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. [Malachi 1.11,14]"

If the above is unclear:
A.D. 150
St Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 41:

"He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist"

A.D. 95
Apostolic Succession
St Clement, bishop of Rome, First Clement 42, 44 (for more, see The Early Church Was Catholic: Apostolic Succession and Authority):

"The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. [...] Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry."

"Let no man deceive himself. ...[I]f they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. [...] But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. [...] 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."

If the above isn't clear enough:
A.D. 150
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 66:

"And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 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 by the Word of God, had both 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."

A.D. 150
Baptismal Regeneration (baptism is not merely symbolic)
and Baptism Necessary for Salvation
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 61, 66:

"Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. [John 3.3]"

"And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined."

If the necessity of baptism is not clear enough in the above quotes:
A.D. 200
Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:

"...the prescript is laid down that without baptism, salvation is attainable by none (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, Unless one be born of water, he has not life [John 3.5])"

A.D. 150
Basic structure of the Mass
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 67:

"[O]n the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons."

A.D. 155
Veneration of Saints and their Relics

Martyrdom of St Polycarp

Author unknown, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 17 (for more, see Relics of Saints and the Early Church):

"[After Bishop Polycarp was martyed in a Roman stadium] But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said...being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!"

A.D. 160
Mary as the New Eve
St Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100, ~A.D. 160:

"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.'"

A.D 170
Use of the word 'Trinity'
Theophilus, patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus to Autolycus 2.15:

"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man."

The crucifixion of St Peter

St Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.2:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”

A.D. 200
'Trinity', 'Person', 'Substance' Formula
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 2:

"...especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds."

A.D. 367
27 book New Testament Canon

St Athanasius, Easter Letter of 367, 5:

"Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."

A Protestant Defense of Mary's Perpetual Virginity; or Evangelical Mariology as a peculiar historical aberration

2011-11-01T10:49:00.003-05:00

The Annunciation

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not only a virgin before Jesus was born, but remained a virgin perpetually thereafter.

Most evangelicals find this to be just another silly Catholic belief that can be quickly dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of the Scriptures, seeing as the Bible mentions that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

One such example is Matthew 12.46: "While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him." Other examples include Matthew 13.55, Mark 6.3 (this is the one that mentions sisters), John 2.12, John 7.3, John 7.5, John 7.10, Acts 1.14, 1 Corinthians 9.5, and Galatians 1.19.

Here's a traditional response:

"The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned."

There is another passage usually brought up as a evidence that Mary was not perpetually a virgin, Matthew 1.24-25: "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."

To say that Joseph "knew her not until she had given birth to a son", many evangelicals argue, seems to imply very strongly that Joseph did "know" Mary after she had given birth to Jesus. Another traditional response:

"This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ.

He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers."

St Jerome

Who's this Helvidius that keeps getting mentioned? He was a 4th century theologian who taught that Mary was not a virgin after the birth Jesus and based this belief on the very same verses that we have brought up. Helvidius' view was immediately condemned in the Church as newly-invented blasphemy, with a famous defense of Mary's perpetual virginity given by St Jerome in his work The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: "Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy? Who thought the theory worth two-pence?" (18)

The explanations quoted above in defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary, while accurate, are fairly poignant (and at times even a bit harsh). So who are they from?

None other than the great Protestant Reformer John Calvin.

The first quote is from from his Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke, Vol 2, Matthew 13.53-58 and Mark 6.1-6, and the second is from his Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke, Vol 1, Matthew 1.18-25.

For full disclosure, Calvin seems to indicate in a sentence following the second quote that, while he doesn't think there is Scriptural warrant for denying the perpetual virginity of Mary, he doesn't think the question is of much importance either:

"Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."

But notice that Calvin thought that "Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned," (my emphasis) - the very same conclusion that many evangelicals today make from those passages.

And regarding the other common evangelical argument from Matthew 1.24-25, Calvin thought "that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ" and that "[w]hat took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers."

Calvin was not alone among the Reformers in defending the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Mother.

Martin Luther

Martin Luther wrote:

"When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." (That Jesus was Born a Jew)

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. [...] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Sermons on John)

Huldrych Zwingli wrote:

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424)

Even John Wesley, in 1749, wrote:

"I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." (Letter to a Roman Catholic)

Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley were simply maintaining the long-standing traditional belief on the matter. Here are just a few witnesses:

St Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Generation of Christ, 5 (4th century):

"For if Joseph had taken her to be his wife, for the purpose of having children, why would she have wondered at the announcement of maternity, since she herself would have accepted becoming a mother according to the law of nature?"

St Augustine, Sermons 186.1 (early 5th century):

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?”

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.28.3 (13th century):

"Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.

For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

St Thomas Aquinas
Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."

Of course, most Christians today still believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary (think Catholics and Orthodox). The practice of evangelicals today of denying the perpetual virginity of Mary is a fairly recent innovation - a peculiar historical aberration, particularly since evangelicals would consider themselves to be conservative Christians - that can't even find historical precedent among the primary magisterial Reformers; for that, one can only look to a hand-full of 4th century teachers who were otherwise universally rejected as heretics. Catholics, on the other hand, have maintained the 2000 year tradition that our blessed and holy mother Mary was indeed not only a virgin before Jesus' birth but also perpetually a virgin thereafter.

TrueStory: "Because I've never been invited," says Wheaton College professor

2011-10-18T15:17:00.000-05:00

Billy Graham Center, home of Wheaton
College's Bible & Theology Dept

"Because I've never been invited."

The Wheaton College professor went on to explain that he was raised protestant and had simply always been protestant, and honestly did not have a good reason he wasn't Catholic.

During my Junior and Senior years at Wheaton College, I felt inspired to meet with professors or other evangelical Christian leaders who I thought would have an informed answer and ask them the question: "Why are you not Catholic?" I related another such story in my post TrueStory: Undercover Catholic.

I wanted to ask this particular professor my question because I had heard about a recent happening in one of his classes that had caught my attention: apparently, in a recent theology course he was teaching, a person asked a question wondering on what authority those who subscribe to sola scriptura have accepted their biblical canon, and he responded: "Did everyone hear that? He just pulled the whole rug out from under us." Unfortunately, it was at the end of class, and there wasn't time for further discussion.

I was struck by three things in his response to my question: that he didn't have a reason why he wasn't Catholic, the humility in his honest response, and his indictment of Catholics: he had never been invited to be Catholic.

As our conversation continued, the question of Church authority came up, and he explained that he accepted the early Church councils, such as Nicaea, and that he wanted to believe that they actually had authority, that they actually settled something.

"So if you accept Nicaea, why not Trent?" I asked.

He paused for a moment. "Good question. I don't really have a good reason. If I accept Nicaea, why don't I accept Trent?"

I was stunned, in the very least by his utter transparency to a student on these foundational issues. Now, he certainly was not just about to join the Catholic Church. But here was a Bible/Theology professor at the Harvard of evangelical schools, a place that does not allow Catholics on staff, admitting that his beliefs regarding the early Church councils seem to imply he should accept all of the Church's councils, including one that condemned basic Protestant doctrines.

Since he had said that he accepted Nicaea and other early councils, I asked what he made of the line in the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed: "I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church". He said that the word 'catholic' wasn't used as a proper name in the early church. I told him that actually it was and directed him on his computer to Augustine's Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, in which Augustine clearly speaks of the Catholic Church as a specific Church separate from other groups of people who call themselves Christians (see ch 4). He said he had never seen that before.

We shook hands and concluded our conversation.

How Catholics could fix Healthcare and Education (and save everyone's soul at the same time)

2011-10-10T13:45:00.000-05:00

St Francis of Assisi
embracing a person
with leprosy

We all know it, at least from the news, but likely also from our own experience: healthcare and education are very expensive. This constitutes a very grave problem since access to good healthcare and a proper education are basic human rights that all people have because of their innate human dignity as created in the imago dei.

Since, then, the solution can't be to give fewer people healthcare or education, we're left with questions like: Are we paying teachers and doctors too much? Or not enough?

Many point out that it doesn't seem as though our education seem is very effective. Is the problem that we need better teachers? Or smaller classes?

All of these problems can be solved at the same time.

While everyone is looking for new ideas, the real solution is actually one that is very old. We Catholics are sitting on a major resource from our tradition that could make quality healthcare and education very affordable and available to all: monasticism.

Our world is in desperate need for a new army of young people with vows of celibacy, poverty, and stability to band together in communities, founded on prayer and devotion to Christ, for the service of others.

Just think: instead of paying 50 teachers' salaries, reduce salary costs to only what's needed for 50 people to live communally in voluntary poverty and simplicity. And with all of the savings let's double the number of teachers to 100 and cut class size in half. And since they are doing their work not for themselves, or even to support a family, but for God (in theory), they should be just as, if not much more, committed to their work. (St Paul points this out in 1 Cor 7.32-34.)

Sounds impossible? We already have the hospitals, schools, and monastic communities in place, along with centuries of experience of how to run monastic communities effectively. We even have a bunch of "super-star" monks and nuns whose lives new religious brothers and sisters can look to for inspiration (think St Francis of Assisi, St Katharine Drexel, Fr St Damien of Molokai, Bl Mother Teresa, etc). We just need the people.

Nun teaching in 1955

Of course, this idea is nothing new at all: religious brothers and sisters have been serving in hospitals and schools for centuries. And I don't mean to ignore those religious brothers and sisters who are currently faithfully serving in hospitals and schools. But with the recent decline in the number of people taking monastic vows, religious brothers and sisters have become so scarce in hospitals and schools here in the US as to be virtually absent. And of course, this decline is well known, and many are praying for more religious vocations.

But as we are praying and hopefully trying to raise our children to see the immense value in the monastic life, we should remember how absolutely urgent the need is for more religious brothers and sisters. For we are not only letting the world down temporally but spiritually: we are losing one the biggest means we have to witness to the saving Gospel of Jesus.

And as a great side benefit to all of this, a surge in religious vocations would also offer a much needed celibate witness to a world that is more and more obsessed with sex and convinced of its necessity to any happy, or even just healthy, human life.

The opportunity is right here before us. Healthcare and education are two of the biggest issues in our country today, with everyone groping around for some sort of solution. I pray that a new generation of young people would rise up and seize this enormous opportunity to bring Christ to this broken and needy world.

1500 years of universal Gospel-compromising heresy & idolatry...or not

2011-10-03T12:12:00.002-05:00

The Last Supper

In the early 16th century, Protestant Huldrych Zwingli began to publicly deny the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Most modern evangelicals follow him in that same denial, instead holding that the Lord's Supper is only symbolic.

The Eucharistic faith of Catholics, on the other hand, came from Christ Himself through His Apostles in the 1st century. Since then, in unbroken succession, every generation has passed on belief in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and thus also the absolute centrality of the Eucharist to any truly Christian life. The evangelical belief that the Lord's Supper is only symbolic, with no sacramental aspect whatsoever, would have been decried by all generations of Christians from the very beginning as heresy.

If one holds the common evangelical position on the Lord's Supper (or, for that matter, the evangelical positions regarding apostolic succession, the nature and order of Christian worship, baptismal regeneration, etc), and that the evangelical position was the original doctrine taught by Christ and His Apostles, then that person must also hold that:

- the entire Church, following the deaths of the Apostles, immediately and publicly fell into universal heresy and idolatry at the center of their beliefs and practices

- this occurred in such a way so as to leave behind no evidence at all that any orthodox Christian had believed the true teaching of the Apostles immediately following their deaths in the most fundamental matters of doctrine and practice (unless you count gnostic heretics, and I don't think evangelicals would)

- this universal heresy persisted for a millennium and a half, such that virtually no would-be Christian lived their faith without centering it around idolatry; every would-be saint of the first 1500 years of the faith - St Irenaeus, St Augustine, St Francis of Assisi, St Catherine of Siena, etc - was actually an idolater

- the very same people who were so deluded into Eucharistic idolatry managed to hold true faith regarding the Trinity, dual-nature of Christ, etc, even amidst widespread, violent, centuries-long opposition and persecution

- this persisted until the 16th century Protestant Huldrych Zwingli finally broke free from 1500 years of deceit and got it right that there is no real presence in the Eucharist - and even then, amidst the opposition of fellow Protestant Martin Luther who still held to the real presence (albeit not transubstantiation)

- all of this occurred despite the fact that Jesus himself promised to be "with [us] always, to the very end of the age," (Mt 28.20) as well as that, since He would build His Church on the rock, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Mt 16.18)

- Christ's meaning in the above verses should be interpreted in a way that doesn't preclude the entire Church persisting in grave heresy and idolatry that fundamentally undermines the Gospel for the first millennium and a half following Christ

- finally, whatever forces that so successfully deceived the Church immediately following the Apostles and kept the entire Church in grave error and idolatry for the first 1500 years of the faith has been unable to seduce the evangelical community regarding the Eucharist again

I find all of the logical conclusions of the evangelical position listed above to be absurd.

But so what? So what if evangelicals are wrong on the Eucharist? They still put their faith in Jesus. Isn't that all that matters? Why does the Eucharist matter so much? Two short answers:
1) If the Eucharist truly is Jesus, then the Eucharist truly is Jesus, the God-man and source of all life. To reject the Eucharist, then, is a rejection of Jesus and the most profound way that He communes with His people. In John 6.53, Jesus states emphatically: "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
2) If the doctrine of the real presence did come from Jesus, then it came from Jesus. It cannot be set aside or ignored. To do so would be to disregard the teachings of God Himself, something no true follower of Christ can do.

I've first listed a few of the most important relevant verses from Sacred Scripture, verses that have always been the basis for the Church's Eucharistic faith. Following those, I've listed in chronological order selected short quotes from throughout the history of the Church to show that the Catholic beliefs regarding the Eucharist have always been the faith of the Church. It is my hope that evangelicals, many of whom do indeed have a sincere faith in Jesus, will eventually come to see that they are following something novel, something of man, and that they will, with God's grace, return to the true faith of the Church of the last two millennia.

For what exactly the Church today teaches regarding the Eucharist in Her own words, turn to paragraphs 1322ff in the Catechist of the Catholic Church.
____________________________________________________________

Christ distributing the Eucharist at the
Last Supper

Sacred Scripture
Matthew 26.26-28 (see also Mark 14.22-24, Luke 22.17-20, & 1 Cor 11.23-26)
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

John 6.51-56
[Jesus said,] "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."

1 Corinthians 10.16-17
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

1 Corinthians 11.27-29
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
____________________________________________________________

Christian Witness
St Ignatius of Antioch, bishop of Antioch, martyr
Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6-7, ~A.D. 110:
Let no man deceive himself. ...[I]f they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. [...] But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. [...] 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. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.

St Justin the Martyr, philosopher, martyr
First Apology, 66, ~A.D. 150:
And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 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 by the Word of God, had both 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.

St Irenaeus

St Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum (now Lyon, France), martyr
Against Heresies, ~A.D. 180:
But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (IV.18.5)

When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? (V.2.3)

St Cyprian of Carthage, bishop of Carthage, martyr
On the Lapsed, 25, 3rd century:
Learn what occurred when I myself was present and a witness some parents who by chance were escaping [persecution], being little careful on account of their terror, left a little daughter under the care of a wet-nurse. The nurse gave up the forsaken child to the magistrates. They gave it, in the presence of an idol whither the people flocked (because it was not yet able to eat flesh on account of its years), bread mingled with wine, which however itself was the remainder of what had been used in the immolation of those that had perished. Subsequently the mother recovered her child. But the girl was no more able to speak, or to indicate the crime that had been committed, than she had before been able to understand or to prevent it. Therefore it happened unawares in their ignorance, that when we were sacrificing, the mother brought it in with her. Moreover, the girl mingled with the saints, became impatient of our prayer and supplications, and was at one moment shaken with weeping, and at another tossed about like a wave of the sea by the violent excitement of her mind; as if by the compulsion of a torturer the soul of that still tender child confessed a consciousness of the fact with such signs as it could. When, however, the solemnities were finished, and the deacon began to offer the cup to those present, and when, as the rest received it, its turn approached, the little child, by the instinct of the divine majesty, turned away its face, compressed its mouth with resisting lips, and refused the cup. Still the deacon persisted, and, although against her efforts, forced on her some of the sacrament of the cup. Then there followed a sobbing and vomiting. In a profane body and mouth the Eucharist could not remain; the draught sanctified in the blood of the Lord burst forth from the polluted stomach. So great is the Lord's power, so great is His majesty. The secrets of darkness were disclosed under His light, and not even hidden crimes deceived God's priest.

St Hippolytus of Rome, martyr
Apostolic Tradition, 37-38, 3rd century:
Having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the antitype of the Blood of Christ. Therefore do not spill from it, for some foreign spirit to lick it up because you despised it. You will become as one who scorns the Blood, the price with which you have been bought.

St Cyril of Jerusalem, bishop of Jerusalem, doctor of the Church, confessor
Catechetical Lecture 22, 1-2, 6, 4th century:
Since then [Jesus] Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood? [...] Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you.

St Augustine of Hippo

St Augustine, bishop of Hippo, doctor of the Church, confessor
Sermons 272, 4th-5th century:
What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction

Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431
Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius:
Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, and professing his return to life from the dead and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody worship in the churches and so proceed to the mystical thanksgivings and are sanctified having partaken of the holy flesh and precious blood of Christ, the saviour of us all. This we receive not as ordinary flesh, heaven forbid, nor as that of a man who has been made holy and joined to the Word by union of honour, or who had a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and real flesh of the Word. For being life by nature as God, when he became one with his own flesh, he made it also to be life-giving, as also he said to us: "Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood". For we must not think that it is the flesh of a man like us (for how can the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature?), but as being made the true flesh of the one who for our sake became the son of man and was called so.

Pope St Gregory VII
Required confession of faith (as quoted in Mysterium Fidei, 52), 11th century:
I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine that are placed on the altar are, through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the consecration they are the true body of Christ—which was born of the Virgin and which hung on the Cross as an offering for the salvation of the world—and the true blood of Christ—which flowed from His side—and not just as a sign and by reason of the power of the sacrament, but in the very truth and reality of their substance and in what is proper to their nature.

4th Lateran Council, 1215
Confession of Faith:
[Jesus'] body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God's power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors.

St Francis of Assisi, confessor, founder of the Order of Friars Minor
Letter to All the Friars, early 13th century:
Let the entire man be seized with fear; let the whole world tremble; let heaven exult when Christ, the Son of the Living God, is on the altar in the hands of the priest. O admirable height and stupendous condescension! O humble sublimity! O sublime humility! that the Lord of the universe, God and the Son of God, so humbles Himself that for our salvation He hides Himself under a morsel of bread.

St Thomas Aquinas, priest, Dominican monk, doctor of the Church
attributed to him, 13th century:
The Sacrament of the Body of the Lord puts the demons to flight, defends us against the incentives to vice and to concupiscence, cleanses the soul from sin, quiets the anger of God, enlightens the understanding to know God, inflames the will and the affections with the love of God, fills the memory with spiritual sweetness, confirms the entire man in good, frees us from eternal death, multiplies the merits of a good life, leads us to our everlasting home, and re-animates the body to eternal life.

St Catherine of Siena, of whom it is said
that she lived 19 years with no food but
the Eucharist

St Catherine of Siena, doctor of the church, virgin
a prayer attributed to her, 14th century:
O inestimable charity! Even as You, true God and true Man, gave Yourself entirely to us, so also You left Yourself entirely for us, to be our food, so that during our earthly pilgrimage we would not faint with weariness, but would be strengthened by You, our celestial Bread. O man, what has your God left you? He has left you Himself, wholly God and wholly Man, concealed under the whiteness of bread. O fire of love! Was it not enough for You to have created us to Your image and likeness, and to have recreated us in grace through the Blood of Your Son, without giving Yourself wholly to us as our Food, O God, Divine Essence? What impelled You to do this? Your charity alone. It was not enough for You to send Your Word to us for our redemption; neither were You content to give Him us as our Food, but in the excess of Your love for Your creature, You gave to man the whole divine essence.

Council of Trent, 1545-1563
Session 13, Ch 1, 1551:
In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. ...[F]or thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood...

St Francis de Sales, bishop of Geneva, doctor of the Church, confessor
Introduction to the Devout Life, XIV.1, early 17th century:
[T]he Sun of all spiritual exercises, even the most holy, sacred and Sovereign Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist, [is] the very centre point of our Christian religion, the heart of all devotion, the soul of piety;—that Ineffable Mystery which embraces the whole depth of Divine Love, by which God, giving Himself really to us, conveys all His Graces and favours to men with royal magnificence.

1st Vatican Council, 1870
Profession of Faith:

Pope Bl John Paul II

I profess that in the mass there is offered to God a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our lord Jesus Christ; and that there takes place the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into his body, and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood, and this conversion the catholic church calls transubstantiation.

Pope Bl John Paul II
We Adore God Present Among Us, 1993:
United with the angels and saints of the heavenly Church, let us adore the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. Prostrate, we adore this great mystery that contains God's new and definitive covenant with humankind in Christ.

St Francis of Assisi was as Catholic as they come

2011-09-27T14:58:00.000-05:00

He's honored in the Billy Graham Museum's Rotunda of Witnesses, he's cited as an inspiration for the New Monasticism movement, and he's just in general held in great respect among evangelicals. And rightly so, since his life of radical adherence to Christ is just as challenging today as it was 800 years ago.

But as many evangelicals are inspired by the life of St Francis of Assisi, they often are unaware or ignore that St Francis was about as committed to the Catholic faith as they come. He wasn't a Catholic who wished he was Protestant: instead, he held with all of his being as essential to the faith those very things by which Protestants have defined themselves by rejecting as Satanic corruptions of the faith.

In other words, he wouldn't be skipping Sunday morning Mass for a Eucharist-less rock concert at the local non-denominational ecclesial community.

Am I happy that evangelicals are interested at all in looking to the lives of pre-Reformation Catholic saints? Of course! - it played a significant role in leading me back to Mother Church! I ask only that as they do so, they look at the actual lives of the saints - not censored, watered-down versions made to fit modern American evangelicalism. As evangelicals do so, I hope that they will see that Protestantism truly is a fairly recent innovation and that the Catholic Church is indeed Christ's Church of the ages.

When we look at St Francis' life, we find one that was decidedly Catholic: he went to Mass, obeyed the hierarchy, fought against heresy, is credited with bringing Eucharistic Adoration to Italy, and founded a new monastic order that reported directly to the Pope. In a time when grave disorders and abuses in the Church were rampant, St Francis sought reform by living a life of even more radical adherence to the Church and her teachings - the opposite of the entire Protestant project.

We find more in the few writings he left behind: he exhorted people to confess all of their sins to priests, warned that mortal sin led to hell, and left behind a beautiful prayer of praise to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

But St Francis mostly wrote about the Eucharist - and rightly so, since the Eucharist has always been at the center of authentic Christian living. The Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council of the 1960s reaffirmed the faith of St Francis of Assisi when it taught that "the Eucharistic sacrifice...is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life" (Lumen Gentium, 11). The beliefs and practices of modern evangelicals, on the other hand, would be absolutely foreign - if not outright blasphemous - to St Francis.

Among the quotes from his writings below, you'll find that he firmly believed in the real presence in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, that only priests can consecrate the Eucharist, and that all priests, regardless of their personal sanctity, should be reverenced as a result - all of which are rejected by modern day evangelicals.

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

Let the entire man be seized with fear; let the whole world tremble; let heaven exult when Christ, the Son of the Living God, is on the altar in the hands of the priest. O admirable height and stupendous condescension! O humble sublimity! O sublime humility! that the Lord of the universe, God and the Son of God, so humbles Himself that for our salvation He hides Himself under a morsel of bread. (Letter to All the Friars)

We ought...to visit Churches frequently and to reverence clerics not only for themselves, if they are sinners, but on account of their office and administration of the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which they sacrifice on the altar and receive and administer to others. And let us all know for certain that no one can be saved except by the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the holy words of the Lord which clerics say and announce and distribute and they alone administer and not others. (Letter to All the Faithful)

But all those who do not do penance and who do not receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but who give themselves to vices and sins and walk after evil concupiscence and bad desires and who do not observe what they have promised, corporally they serve the world and its fleshly desires and cares and solicitudes for this life, but mentally they serve the devil, deceived by him whose sons they are and whose works they do; blind they are because they see not the true light,—our Lord Jesus Christ. (Letter to All the Faithful)

For man despises, soils, and treads under foot the Lamb of God when, as the Apostle says, not discerning and distinguishing the holy bread of Christ from other nourishments or works, he either eats unworthily... (Letter to All the Friars)

We ought indeed to confess all our sins to a priest and receive from him the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who does not eat His Flesh and does not drink His Blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Let him, however, eat and drink worthily, because he who receives unworthily "eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord," —that is, not discerning it from other foods. (Letter to All the Faithful)

I conjure you all to show all reverence and all honor possible to the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the things that are in heaven and the things that are on earth are pacified and reconciled to Almighty God. I also beseech in the Lord all my brothers who are and shall be and desire to be priests of the Most High that, when they wish to celebrate Mass, being pure, they offer the true Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ purely, with reverence, with a holy and clean intention, not for any earthly thing or fear or for the love of any man, as it were pleasing men. But let every will, in so far as the grace of the Almighty helps, be directed to Him, desiring thence to please the High Lord Himself alone because He alone works there [in the Holy Sacrifice] as it may please Him, for He Himself says: "Do this for a commemoration of Me;" "if any one doth otherwise he becomes the traitor Judas and is made guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord." (Letter to All the Friars)

For many things are sanctified by the word of God, and by the power of the words of Christ the Sacrament of the Altar is effected. (Letter to All the Friars)

I entreat you more than if it were a question of myself that, when it is becoming and it may seem to be expedient, you humbly beseech the clerics to venerate above all the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Name and written words which sanctify the body. They ought to hold as precious the chalices, corporals, ornaments of the altar, and all that pertain to the Sacrifice. And if the most holy Body of the Lord be lodged very poorly in any place, let It according to the command of the Church be placed by them and left in a precious place, and let It be carried with great veneration and administered to others with discretion. The Names also and written words of the Lord, wheresoever they may be found in unclean places, let them be collected, and they ought to be put in a proper place. And in all the preaching you do, admonish the people concerning penance and that no one can be saved except he that receives the most sacred Body and Blood of the Lord. And while It is being sacrificed by the priest on the altar and It is being carried to any place, let all the people on bended knees render praise, honor, and glory to the Lord God Living and True. (Letter to the Custodes)

Let us all consider, O clerics, the great sin and ignorance of which some are guilty regarding the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ and His most holy Name and the written words of consecration. For we know that the Body cannot exist until after these words of consecration. For we have nothing and we see nothing of the Most High Himself in this world except [His] Body and Blood, names and words by which we have been created and redeemed from death to life.But let all those who administer such most holy mysteries, especially those who do so indifferently, consider among themselves how poor the chalices, corporals, and linens may be where the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is sacrificed. And by many It is left in wretched places and carried by the way disrespectfully, received unworthily and administered to others indiscriminately. Again His Names and written words are sometimes trampled under foot, for the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of God. Shall we not by all these things be moved with a sense of duty when the good Lord Himself places Himself in our hands and we handle Him and receive Him daily? Are we unmindful that we must needs fall into His hands? Let us then at once and resolutely correct these faults and others; and wheresoever the most holy Body of our Lord Jesus Christ may be improperly reserved and abandoned, let It be removed thence and let It be put and enclosed in a precious place. In like manner wheresoever the Names and written words of the Lord may be found in unclean places they ought to be collected and put away in a decent place. And we know that we are bound above all to observe all these things by the commandments of the Lord and the constitutions of holy Mother Church. And let him who does not act thus know that he shall have to render an account therefor before our Lord Jesus Christ on the day of judgment. And let him who may cause copies of this writing to be made, to the end that it may be the better observed, know that he is blessed by the Lord. (On Reverence for the Lord's Body and the Cleanliness of the Altar)

**All of these quotes were taken from his writings as they appear here.**

If the Catholic Church Isn't Main-Stream Christianity, I'm Not Sure What Is

2011-09-19T13:40:00.000-05:00

A few months ago, I had the opportunity to talk to one of my old evangelical friends from high school about the Catholic Church and why I felt compelled to join. At one point in our conversation, he asked:
"If the Catholic Church was the original church, why is it no longer in main-stream Christianity?" (1)

And in response to my recent post The Holy Spirit Told Me To Change The Bible, this was one of the comments:
"Hi Brantley, you are absolutely correct in saying that if any megachurch or even Billy Graham himself tried to alter the 66 book canon, heresy would be yelled from the rooftops(or facebook). There's no way it would fly. But Luther and Calvin's alteration did fly. People were sold on it and went with it. Why? Where was the uproar that you know would happen today, then. Why did the faithful accept the shortened canon?"

Here are the quick answers to their questions:
To the first, Catholicism never 'left main-stream Christianity'. It's still in whatever stream it's always been.

To the second, the vast majority of Christians did not, and still do not, accept the new biblical canon of the Reformers. The uproar you're wondering about was the Church's entire response to the Reformation, which included the 18-year-long and greatly prolific Council of Trent, widespread reforms of the inner-workings of the Church, the founding of several new religious orders, countless Catholic martyrs attempting to re-evangelize those who left the Church (yes, Protestants died as well), and the rise of six new doctors of the Church.

In any event, both individuals asked their questions in good faith. But both encounters represent a very common misconception among evangelicals.

Many evangelicals, it seems, have the mistaken notion that Protestantism, and then later American evangelicalism in particular, is Christianity since the 16th century; in other words, that, while the Catholic Church had been the place of Christianity in the centuries prior, the 16th century Protestants sort of "took over from there". This view of history leads many evangelicals who reject the Catholic Church, even considering it some sort of cult, to look back fondly on St Francis of Assisi or St Augustine or many other great saints and understand them to "be on the same team" as them. Great Catholic saints of the last few centuries are largely ignored, while great Protestants are held up in their place. The idea is that whatever stream St Francis and St Augustine were in, Protestantism, and perhaps now evangelicalism - but certainly not the modern Catholic Church - is the continuation of that.

Here are two great examples of what I'm talking about:

Mark Driscoll

(a) Check out the Rotunda of Witnesses in the Billy Graham Center Museum on Wheaton College's campus where you'll find St Justin the Martyr, St Gregory the Great, St Francis of Assisi, and Blaise Pascal alongside Martin Luther, Jonathon Edwards and other Protestants in a display that holds them all up as great Christian witnesses as the name suggests. (I gave more of my thoughts about this in my most recent post.)

(b) Another great example is how non-denominational evangelical pastor Mark Driscoll absurdly pretends that St Patrick, St Athanasius, and St Augustine - all of whom were Catholic bishops - were somehow not Catholic (I specifically respond to the idea that St Augustine was not a Catholic in my post St Augustine Was A Devout Catholic).

All of this would make sense if Protestants had in some way overthrown the Church, or taken her over in a coup d'état, or if Catholicism had died away after the Reformation leaving only Protestants to keep Christianity going, or even if Protestantism had restored the Christian faith as it had existed for most of history - the faith of St Patrick, St Francis, St Augustine, and St Athanasius, etc.

But none of those things happened.

In point of fact, the Catholic Church didn't go anywhere. The Catholic Church existed before, during, and after the Reformation and is still going strong in the present day. The Catholic Church today is the same Catholic Church of the 4th century, the 12th century, the 18th century, or any of the last 20 centuries - the same Catholic Church of all of the saints of history (of course, with our eyes wide open to legitimate development). The Reformers, on the other hand, left the Church of the ages and rejected dogma after dogma that had been held by all Christians of all times, even changing the Bible (see "Those Extra Books": Who Really Changed the Bible and The Holy Spirit Told Me To Change The Bible). In other words, modern day evangelicals are not fully a part of the same thing of which the great saints of the first 1500 years were a part: the Catholic Church. (2)

A World Youth Day crowd

And besides, it's still the case today that the vast majority of people who follow Christ are Catholic (3). Not that it proves that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, but it certainly means that Catholics are at least a part of whatever one might construe as 'main-stream Christianity'.

That is - unless of course you don't think that Catholics are Christians. But then Catholics only 'left the main-stream' in your mind because you decided to define them out of it, not because anything at all has changed or happened to Catholics. Plus, since the only individuals that evangelicals might look to for Christian inspiration before the Reformation were all Catholic, if Catholics aren't Christians, I'm not sure what Christian stream Protestantism took over. One can't lambast the modern Church's doctrines of, let's say, the real presence or apostolic succession and at the same time embrace the saints who lived and defended those very doctrines.

It is precisely this realization, it seems to me, that the Catholic Church is the uninterrupted Church of Christian history - or put another way, that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the Catholic Church - that is at the heart of many of the conversions of evangelicals to the Catholic Church in recent years.

(1) I can't remember his exact words, so this "quote" is a paraphrase
(2) I say "not fully" because evangelicals are, in virtue of their baptism, in partial communion with the Catholic Church

(3) Granted, it's always difficult to ever get an accurate count of the number of sincere, practicing adherents to any religion, so any stats regarding the number of Catholics, evangelicals, or what have you, is always somewhat fuzzy. Nonetheless, all statistics on the issue show that there are several times more Catholics in the world than evangelicals.

Billy Graham Museum Honors a Pope Alongside Luther As Great Christian Witness

2011-09-13T13:15:00.001-05:00

If you're ever in the Chicago area, I recommend you check out the great Billy Graham Center Museum on Wheaton College's campus. In addition to a great exhibition on the history of evangelical preachers in the US, with a very interesting and extensive display on the ministry of Billy Graham, there is what is called the Rotunda of Witnesses. You can't miss it: it's the first thing you walk through to get to the rest of the museum.

It's a big black room with a tall ceiling and has these beautiful banners on the walls that depict individuals that whoever put the museum together holds up as great Christian witnesses in history.

Among those honored there you'll find St Justin the Martyr, St Gregory the Great, St Francis of Assisi, and Blaise Pascal, right there alongside Martin Luther, Jonathon Edwards, and other Protestants.

Once I started to become more serious about Catholicism during my Junior year at Wheaton, I suddenly realized just how strange this display is.

Consider the lives of these four men that an evangelical institution - that will not even allow Catholics on staff - is holding up as great Christian witnesses:

St Justin the Martyr was a 2nd century Catholic philosopher and apologist who believed in the real presence of the Eucharist and has left for us the earliest detailed account of the Mass. (I demonstrate both in my post How the Early Christians Worshiped.)

St Francis of Assisi was a great Catholic reformer of the 13th century who founded a Catholic order, brought Eucharistic adoration to Italy, and taught that people should show reverence to their priests - even if the priests were bad men (see his Letter to All the Faithful; a far cry from the Protestant Reformers!).

St Gregory the Great was not only a monk but of course also a Pope - an office that Luther, who's depicted in the same display, taught was a Satanic office. The monastic life was also rejected by most Protestants. In the display, Gregory is actually depicted in papal vestments (looks like a three-tiered papal tiara on his head to me) and with the title "servum servorum dei" - a title that he coined that has since become a title of the Pope.

Most strangely, Blaise Pascal was a Catholic after the Reformation and during a time when normal Protestant rhetoric was to interpret Revelation's Whore of Babylon as the Catholic Church.

It is of course absurd to hold these people up right alongside the very people who tore down a lot for which they stood. It seems to me that this is some sort of attempt to make evangelicals feel like they're a part of the Great Tradition when in fact they reject most it.

Review: 'If Protestantism Is True: Reformation Meets Rome' by Devin Rose

2011-09-09T19:13:00.000-05:00

If Protestantism Is True begins with author Devin Rose's own gripping testimony of his journey from atheism, evangelicalism, and finally the Catholic Church. Growing up in a nominal Christian family, Rose found himself proudly self-identifying as an atheist from an early age. Ironically, however, it was when he was in college that, after being led to despair, emptiness, and even considerations of suicide by his atheism, he began to pray and seek after God. His roommate happened to be an evangelical Christian, so Devin began attending church with him, where he met and gave his life to Christ. With the zeal of a new Christian, Rose began an intense study of the faith, and since he had not grown up with it, he was able to see and evaluate the evangelical beliefs he was being taught with fresh eyes. After lengthy period of study, prayer, and debate with his evangelical friends, Rose eventually concluded that the Catholic Church is the fullest manifestation of Christ's Church.

For the rest of the book, Rose goes topic by topic, including issues such as the biblical canon, the sacraments, and Mary, explaining relevant biblical material and Church history. At the end of each section he asks his reader to consider, given what he has just explained, what the logical consequences of the claims of Protestantism must be.

For example, on the chapter on the biblical canon, Rose gives a quote from Protestant Reformer John Calvin in which Calvin disregards the role of the Church in settling the biblical canon and argues that a individual Christian who is truly indwelt with the Holy Spirit can know which books should and should not be included in the Bible - as easily as one can "distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter" - simply by reading the books themselves. John Calvin, of course, endorsed the new 66 book Protestant canon - a canon which, according to historical record, no Christian had ever thought was the canon in the 1500 years prior to the Reformation. Rose explains the logical conclusion of Calvin's claims:

"If Protestantism is true, then the canon is obvious to any true Christian bright enough to discern black from white. Therefore many (supposedly) holy men and women who gave their lives for Christ in the early centuries of the Church did not actually have the Holy Spirit, for they were not able to apprehend the true canon of Scripture. If the canon is known easily by the Spirit testifying to the Christian's heart, it must be concluded that not until Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century did true Christian leaders exist who listed to the Holy Spirit on this topic." (pg. 77)

The book particularly takes off with the second apologetic chapter, "Reformation: Schism or Branches?", and I thoroughly enjoyed the rest. In example after example, Rose hits the nail on the head, forcing the reader to truly consider the logic or reasonableness of many Protestant claims in a very clear, engaging, and interesting manner. And the breadth of Rose's research is wide, taking into account the Bible, the Church Fathers, the Reformers, and modern historical analysis of the Reformation. Two subjects that were particularly interesting were Rose's defense of the Sacraments and his look into the lives and teachings of the Reformers themselves (e.g. Martin Luther taught that polygamy was morally permissible [pg. 55] and rejected the inspiration of several New Testament books [pg. 69]). Certain sections of the book were so informative and/or lucid that I found myself having to read aloud much of the book to my patient wife.

Devin Rose, the author

So it was unfortunate that I found Rose's first apologetic chapter, "The Catholic Church In History", somewhat slow and at times confusing. Part of its problem was that the line from the title, "If Protestantism is true..." was used too frequently. The line had the most power in those chapters in which is was used more sparingly (such as ch 8, "The Sacraments"). Another issue, albeit minor but one that may stand out to evangelical readers who will already be on the defensive when reading, is that Rose's language occasionally veers from his otherwise formal tone.

However, despite the clear polemical intent of the book, Rose does not personally attack Protestants nor suggest in some sort of sweeping way that all things Protestant are bad. Instead, when it is relevant, Rose gives Protestants credit where credit is due (e.g. "Protestants are seen today as great missionaries, and rightfully so, as thousands of Protestant Christians live as full-time missionaries..." pg 156).

Taken as a whole, Rose very clearly and succinctly presents a great number of very good arguments against Protestantism and for Catholicism. At a not-so-scary 150 pages long, If Protestantism Is True is a great book for Catholics wanting to be able to better understand and defend the Catholic faith in reference to Protestantism. Because of its polemical nature, the book would probably be most helpful for evangelicals who are already in the midst of investigations of the Catholic Church.

You can get a copy of If Protestantism Is True by Devin Rose at Amazon for a cheap $9.35, or $2.99 for the Kindle edition. Devin Rose also maintains the blog entitled 'St. Joseph's Vanguard'.

The Holy Spirit Told Me To Change The Bible

2011-09-01T15:56:00.000-05:00

After listing the new 66 book Protestant canon, the Gallic Confession (1559), co-authored by John Calvin states:
"We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books upon which, however useful, we can not found any articles of faith." (Article IV)

John Calvin, in his work Institutes of the Christian Religion, again gives the same argument:
"Profane men think that religion rests only on opinion, and, therefore, that they may not believe foolishly, or on slight grounds, desire and insist to have it proved by reason that Moses and the prophets were divinely inspired. But I answer, that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who spoke by the mouth of the prophets, must penetrate our hearts, in order to convince us that they faithfully delivered the message with which they were divinely entrusted." (ch 7, paragraph 3)

Prior to the Reformation, the 73 book Catholic biblical canon had been the undisputed biblical canon for over 1000 years. This new 66 book Protestant canon being defended by John Calvin had never existed before, never having been put forth by any individual or group in the 1500 years prior (even during the first three centuries of the Church during which the canon was a disputed matter). The 16th century self-appointed reformers literally removed books from the universally accepted Bible to create a brand new canon and then justified it by appealing to an "inward illumination of the Holy Spirit".

Would evangelicals accept someone doing the same thing today?

If an influential non-denominational mega-church decided to remove, let's say, the book of Esther from the Old Testament and began printing Bibles with a 65 book canon, and started saying that all those who had more than 65 books in their Bible had added them and were therefore heretics, evangelicals would rightly be in an uproar: 'How dare the the mega-church change the Bible!'

If the mega-church responded that they had made their decision "by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit", would any evangelical be satisfied by that response? Of course not. Evangelicals would probably brand the mega-church as heretical (as was the case in the recent Rob Bell scandal).

Evangelicals might counter that the Holy Spirit wasn't leading them to remove those books. But since there's not necessarily any reason to think that the mega-church is or is not being led by the Holy Spirit any better than other evangelicals, such a counter would be useless in settling the matter (remember, priesthood of all believers).

And since Esther isn't quoted as an authority by any other books of the Bible, there can be no appeal to the other Scriptures (even if it was quoted by another book, the mega-church could just respond that that book must not be canonical as well).

Evangelicals would only be left with an appeal to tradition (again, as with Rob Bell), but such an appeal wouldn't work too well: Esther's canonicity was frequently contested in the early church and only settled when the Catholic Church settled the canon at the end of the 4th century. But when the Catholic Church did that, she established the very 73 book canon that evangelicals themselves follow the Reformers in denying. In other words, evangelicals couldn't appeal to the Catholic Church's establishment of Esther as canonical without also accepting the Church's establishment of Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Baruch, and Wisdom as canonical, as well as the Church's authority to settle the canon at all. Since they probably wouldn't do either of those things, evangelicals would be forced to appeal to the mere consensus among the Reformers in the 16th century (only 500 years ago, not very long in the history of Christianity) on the 66 book Protestant canon.

But even that wouldn't solve the problem. The mega-church could make an argument similar to the one made by the Reformers in the 16th century: 'We reject the authority of any church bodies or leaders. We don't follow tradition, councils, confessions, or even common consensus, but instead follow the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit which is leading us to our 65 book canon.'

They would have few options left, but I still doubt that many evangelicals would concede the issue.

If evangelicals today wouldn't allow someone to create a new Bible because they felt they were "illumined" to do so by the Holy Spirit, then evangelicals cannot go on using the 66 book Protestant canon that was created on the same grounds.*

*At least according to John Calvin, whom many evangelicals today follow and pattern themselves after

Contemplating the Mystery of the Gospel

2011-08-23T18:44:00.000-05:00

The 11th century Catholic saint and doctor of the Church Bernard of Clairvaux felt compelled in prayer to ask Jesus what the greatest unrecorded suffering was in his passion. Jesus responded: "I had on My Shoulder, while I bore My Cross on the Way of Sorrows, a grievous Wound which was more painful than the others and which is not recorded by men. Honor this Wound with thy devotion..."

This inspired St Bernard to author what is now known as the Prayer to the shoulder wound of Jesus:
"O Loving Jesus, Meek Lamb of God, I, a miserable sinner, salute and worship the most Sacred Wound of Thy Shoulder on which Thou didst bear Thy heavy Cross, which so tore Thy Flesh and laid bare Thy Bones as to inflict on Thee an anguish greater than any other wound of Thy Most Blessed Body. I adore Thee, O Jesus most sorrowful; I praise and glorify Thee and give Thee thanks for this most sacred and painful Wound, beseeching Thee by that exceeding pain and by the crushing burden of Thy heavy Cross, to be merciful to me, a sinner, to forgive me all my mortal and venial sins and to lead me on towards Heaven along the Way of Thy Cross. Amen."

It's a beautiful prayer and story. But one might wonder why St Bernard was thinking about this in the first place. Why would such a detail, which seems to have little theological value, matter? Only a person dwelling on the fullness of the event of Christ's passion for it's own sake would consider asking such a question.

The truths of the Christian faith, whether they be regarding the nature of the Trinity or of Christ, regarding the great events of salvation history, or regarding the very Gospel itself, are great mysteries. They propose to encompass all of reality and to be the singular source of true meaning of all of human life. Their profundity cannot but envelop the seeking soul in awe and warrant our life-long contemplation.

In other words, one does not just 'get' the Trinity and then move on.

Evangelicals spend a lot of time learning about the story of salvation - a good thing that seems to outpace the learning of many Catholics here in the US - but there is little time or instruction given to prayerful contemplation of the same. One can see this reflected in evangelical worship space architecture, which tends to be great for rock bands and speakers but very poor for quiet soul searching (aka no one looking for a sacred space to pray would stop by the local evangelical mega-church).

Contemplation, on the other hand, pervades Catholic life. St Bernard may have been exceptional in his holiness and love of God, but the contemplative nature of his spirituality was not.

The foundations of Catholic life and worship, the Mass and the liturgical calendar, both in their own way re-propose the work of salvation for our contemplation on a regularly basis for all Catholics.

The Stations of the Cross - in which one slowly contemplates 14 moments in Christ's passion, including Jesus meeting various people along the way and falling with the cross - and the Rosary - which invites us to meditate, one by one, on 20 seminal moments in the lives of Jesus and Mary (e.g. the Annunciation, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection, etc) - are probably the two most widely known and practiced Catholic spiritual devotions.

There are also devotions to the Holy Face of Jesus, the Holy Name of Jesus, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and to Divine Mercy. The ancient practice of lectio divina - in which one prayerfully reads and contemplates the Scriptures - contrasts sharply with the evangelical practice of reading the Scriptures almost exclusively for personal application. Icons are not intended to be merely portraits so much as highly symbolic portals to the heavenly for our contemplation. Grand cathedrals are built not simply as large gathering spaces but as monuments that point our minds to heavenly things.

All invite us to contemplate, not just know more about, some aspect of the Christian faith in a deeper way.

I am not aware of significant practices among evangelicals that would compare. I can only note that it seems as though some in the emergent church's new monasticism movement are starting to recover some of these elements of Catholic spirituality that were rejected in the Reformation.

The mysterious begs our contemplation. And nothing is more grand, more wonderful, or more mysterious than the Gospel.

St Augustine was a devout Catholic

2011-07-18T21:36:00.000-05:00

If there's one Church Father who Protestants (including evangelicals) try to claim as their own, it's the great St Augustine (A.D. 354-430).

This is, however, very strange since St Augustine was Catholic.

And he wasn't just any Catholic, he was the Catholic Bishop of Hippo. And as such, he believed and taught the faith of the Catholic Church of his day (which, unsurprisingly, has been preserved to our own day 1600 years later). Setting aside the much more complex question of what exactly Augustine believed regarding justification, below is just a small sample of quotes from his writings that confirm that he held many distinctively Catholic positions.

The Catholic Church is the true Church
"[T]here are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should..." (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 4)

Tradition as an authority
""The apostles," indeed, "gave no injunctions on the point;" but the custom [of not re-baptizing converts] may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings." (On Baptist, Against the Donatists, 23.31)

"As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful..." (Letter 54.1)

Catholic Canon of the Old Testament
"Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:— Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings [1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings], and two of Chronicles— these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra [Ezra & Nehemiah], which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:— Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah,Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah [which, at that time, included Lamentations and Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books [plus 2 for Lamentations and Baruch] [He then goes on to list the New Testament books]." (On Christian Doctrine II.8.13)

Baptism as Regenerative (not merely symbolic) and Baptism of Infants and Adults
“This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sin—as he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, ‘in the likeness of sin’)—and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man—since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13)

Real Presence in the Eucharist
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table...That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. [...] What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction..." (Sermons 227)

Venial/Mortal Sin Distinction and Need of Penance for Mortal Sins
“When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance” (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7.15, 8.16)

Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead
“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death.” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity, 29.109)

Prayers for the Dead and Asking for the prayers of the saints
"This it was that the blessed martyrs did in their burning love; and if we celebrate their memories in no mere empty form, and, in the banquet whereat they themselves were filled to the full, approach the table of the Lord, we must, as they did, be also ourselves making similar preparations. For on these very grounds we do not commemorate them at that table in the same way, as we do others who now rest in peace, as that we should also pray for them, but rather that they should do so for us, that we may cleave to their footsteps; because they have actually attained that fullness of love, than which, our Lord has told us, there cannot be a greater." (Lectures on the Gospel of John 84.1)

Perpetual Virginity of Mary
“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186.1)

Sinlessness of Mary (considered)
“Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?” (Nature and Grace 36.42)

Mary is the mother of all Christians
“That one woman is both mother and virgin, not in spirit only but even in body. In spirit she ismother, not of our head, who is our Savior himself—of whom all, even she herself, are rightly called children of the bridegroom—but plainly she is the mother of us who are his members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the Mother of that very head” (Holy Virginity 6.6)

What 'Born-Again' Has Always Meant (Until Recently)

2011-07-10T00:17:00.001-05:00

Have you been born-again?

It's a common question among evangelicals. The term 'born-again' comes from John chapter 3:

¹ Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. ² He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” ³ Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

Jesus says that to be saved one must be "born-again". So making sure that one is "born-again" is pretty important! But what does it mean to be "born-again"?

For most evangelicals, to be "born-again" means only to have had a conversion experience in which one gave one's life to Christ. Is that a possible interpretation based on the verses quoted above? Sure, but it certainly goes far beyond what the verses specifically say. Does Jesus give us any hint as to what he means by "born-again"? Here are the next two verses:

⁴ “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
⁵ Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

In verse 5, Jesus clarifies what he meant by "born-again", saying the same sentence again but substituting the phrase "born of water and the Spirit". While the term "born-again" is vague enough to possibly mean simply a conversion experience, being "born of water and the Spirit" is obviously not, at least not exclusively. (I've never seen anyone get wet from saying the sinner's prayer!)

What Christian action involves water and the Holy Spirit? You know the answer: baptism. To be born-again means to baptized. This is not only the current Catholic interpretation of this text (also held today by many Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox), this was the interpretation given by the early Church Fathers - indeed all orthodox Christians prior to the 16th century Protestant Reformation.

This has at least two implications:

First, this means that if you have been baptized, you can confidently say that you have been born-again! (And you should ask your born-again evangelical friend if he has been baptized.)

Second, if Jesus is talking about baptism and not simply a conversion experience - although any adult who is baptized must have put their faith in Christ - then Jesus is teaching something that evangelicals frequently deny: that baptism is necessary for salvation. (see CCC 1257)

Below is a short sample of quotes from the early Church Fathers showing that they interpreted John 3.5 as referring to baptism:

Tertullian, On Baptism, 13
"For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: Go, He says, teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The comparison with this law of that definition, Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens, has tied faith to the necessity of baptism."

St Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ
"Let us however, if it seems well, persevere in enquiring more fully and more minutely concerning Baptism, starting, as from the fountain-head, from the Scriptural declaration, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "

St Ambrose of Milan
On the Mysteries, 4.20
"Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, [1 Jn 5.7] are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [Jn 3.5] Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift ofspiritual grace."

On the Mysteries, 9.59

"So, then, having obtained everything, let us know that we are born again, but let us not say, How are we born again? [...] If, then, the Holy Spirit coming down upon the Virgin wrought the conception, and effected the work of generation, surely we must not doubt but that, coming down upon the Font, or upon those who receive Baptism, He effects the reality of the new birth."

St Augustine, On Baptism, 21.29
"But as baptism is wanting to a good catechumen to his receiving the kingdom of heaven, so true conversion is wanting to a bad man though baptized. For He who said, "Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," said also Himself, "unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.""

Early Church Mariology: Mary as the New Eve

2011-06-22T15:54:00.000-05:00

Why do Catholics today talk so much about Mary?

I'm not sure that Catholics actually talk about Mary as much as evangelicals have been told that Catholics do, but Catholics certainly talk about Mary more than evangelicals (although evangelical interest in Mary seems to be growing). As with many things Catholic, many evangelicals assume that Catholic things like Mariology are "extra things", later medieval corruptions of the faith, whereas evangelicals follow the faith of the early Church.

Such an assumption is of course untrue.

Among the early Christians you find the beliefs that Mary was without sin, that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and that she is properly called the Mother of God (see Theotokos) to name a few. But one of the most widespread insights about Mary's place in God's plan of salvation was her role as the New Eve (which was greatly linked to the above beliefs). Just as Jesus was a recapitulation of Adam (1 Cor 15), Mary was a recapitulation of Eve.

Below is a sample of what early Christians had to say about Mary as the New Eve. Included are quotes from many of the early greats that some evangelicals hold in high esteem, like Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, Jerome, and of course Augustine.

I offer the same challenge to evangelicals as was given by Taylor Marshall a few months ago at his blog: if you were present and heard these Christians teach as they do below, "would you rejoice and say 'Amen' or would you walk out? The way you answer this question will reveal whether you conform to the early Church or not."

St Justin the Martyr, Christian convert, philosopher, and martyr, 2nd century
Dialogue with Trypho, 100, ~A.D. 160:
[Jesus] became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.'

St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, 2nd century
Against Heresies, III.22.4, ~A.D. 180:
In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin... having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.

And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled.

For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, instead of fathers, children have been born unto you. For the Lord, having been born the First-begotten of the dead, and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.

Against Heresies, V.19.1, ~A.D. 180:
That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled—was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.

Tertullian, 2nd-3rd century
The Flesh of Christ, 17, ~A.D. 210
[W]hy is Christ called Adam by the apostle, unless it be that, as man, He was of that earthly origin? And even reason here maintains the same conclusion, because it was by just the contrary operation that God recovered His own image and likeness, of which He had been robbed by the devil. For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin's soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced. But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil's word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil's word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow. Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; while Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to secure salvation to Israel, His own brother after the flesh, and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin's womb His Word, as the good Brother, who should blot out the memory of the evil brother. Hence it was necessary that Christ should come forth for the salvation of man, in that condition of flesh into which man had entered ever since his condemnation.

St Jerome, presbyter, Doctor of the Church, 4th century
Epistle 22.21:
Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary.

St Ephrem, deacon, Doctor of the Church, 4th century
Homily on Our Lord, 3:
With the body then that [was] from the Virgin, [Jesus] entered Sheol and plundered its storehouses and emptied its treasures. He came then to Eve the Mother of all living. This is the vine whose fence Death laid open by her own hands, and caused her to taste of his fruits. So Eve the Mother of all living became the well-spring of death to all living. But Mary budded forth, a new shoot from Eve the ancient vine; and new life dwelt in her, that when Death should come confidently after his custom to feed upon mortal fruits, the life that is slayer of death might be stored up [therein] against him...

Hymns on the Nativity 15:
Let women praise Her, the pure Mary,— that as in Eve their mother—great was their reproach—lo! In Mary their sister—greatly magnified was their honour. [...] Of him the Lord said, that he had fallen from Heaven.— The Abhorred One had exalted himself; from his uplifting he has fallen. The foot of Mary has trod him down, who bruised Eve with his heel.

St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, Doctor of the Church, 4th-5th century
Christian Combat 22:24, A.D. 396 (quote taken from Catholic Answers):
Our Lord . . . was not averse to males, for he took the form of a male, nor to females, for of a female he was born. Besides, there is a great mystery here: that just as death comes to us through a woman, life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, as he had taken delight in the defection of both.

NOTE: Unless noted otherwise, all of the quotes have been take from the texts themselves as they appear on New Advent. Of great help in finding quotes was www.churchfathers.org/.

The Scripture-filled Worship of Catholics

2011-06-06T16:53:00.003-05:00

Many evangelicals have the mistaken notion that Catholics ignore or have a low regard for the Bible. Is this true? One way (of many) to answer this question is to examine the core of Catholic life and worship, the Mass.

During most of the year, Sunday Masses have a reading from the OT, a psalm, a reading from one of the NT epistles, and a Gospel reading, followed by a homily that is supposed to teach from the Scriptures of the day (and that's just half the Mass). That's a lot of Scripture, much more than is read at a typical evangelical worship service.

But as if that weren't enough Scripture for one Mass, the prayers of the Mass themselves are immersed with references to Scripture.

'The Lord be with you', 'Peace be with you', 'Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth', 'Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world' - these are all not only parts of the Mass but are also quotes from Scriptures (Ruth 2.4, Jn 20.19, Lk 2.14, Jn 1.29). The USCCB's annotated Order of Mass* lists 70 Scripture references among the prayers of the Mass. Here are two more big examples:

Soon after reciting the Nicene Creed, and at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the congregation sings these praises to God:

Holy, holy, holy Lord God of power and might
Heaven and earth are full of your glory
Hosanna in the highest
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord
Hosanna in the highest

A person familiar with the Scriptures should immediately recognize that these are not just any words but praises given to God in the Scriptures. The first part is a reference to the worship occurring in heaven itself witnessed by the prophet Isaiah:

¹ In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. ² Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. ³ And they were calling to one another:

   “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
   the whole earth is full of his glory.” (Is 6.1-3)

The second part is a reference to the praises given to Christ during His triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the beginning of Holy Week:

⁸ A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. ⁹ The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,
   “Hosanna to the Son of David!”
   “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”
   “Hosanna in the highest heaven!”  (Mt 21.8-9)

Here's another example: Before going up to receive communion, the congregation prays together:

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.

Again, this should ring a bell:

² There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. ³ The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. ⁴ When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man deserves to have you do this, ⁵ because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.” ⁶ So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. ⁷ That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed." (Lk 7.2-7)

Catholics hear the Scriptures, are instructed from the Scriptures, and take their words of praise from the Scriptures. Far from being unconnected from the Scriptures, the Catholics's worship of God is steeped in Scripture.

*This is for the new translation of the Mass which will begin being used Advent 2011, but the references also apply to the current translation of the Mass. My quotes from the Mass in this blog post use the current translation.

Without Our Authorization

2011-05-13T15:08:00.000-05:00

"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them." (Acts 15.1-2b)

There's a dispute. Both sides view the issue as essential to the faith. How do they respond? Do they argue ad infinitum? Do they simply start separate congregations? Or do they decide that, since they can't agree, this particular issue must not be clear and should therefore not be considered essential to the faith?

"So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and presbyters about this question." (Acts 15.2b)

To settle the dispute they take the issue to the apostles and presbyters (who have been ordained by the apostles). The issue is discussed, with both sides being heard. A consensus is reached, and they decide to send a letter back to original location of the dispute to tell them what the ruling has been. The letter begins with this line:

"We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said." (Acts 15.24, emphasis added)

Whoever was teaching that Christians needed to be circumcised apparently had not been authorized by the apostles and presbyters to do so. That, of course, means that they needed the authorization, and that the apostles and presbyters were the ones who had the authority to give it to them.

But wait, why does a person need authorization from a "human" authority? Priesthood of all believers, we're all equal in Christ, the only authority is Scripture, I thought we only obey Jesus!

The NT Church was not a democracy, nor was the interpretation of Scripture given up as a free-for-all. The apostles were in charge, with authority which they received from Jesus, along with the presbyters who had been ordained by the apostles.

The Catholic Church's bishops, priests, and deacons have received authority passed down, person to person, from the apostles, who received it from Jesus. The structure witnessed to in Acts 15 is the same structure that is the Catholic Church. That's why the Church hierarchy can, as the apostles and presbyters did here in Acts 15, settle disputed matters in the Church. In its basic essence, it works the same way today as it did then.

My question to evangelicals out there is this: What camp are in you today, are you among those who are following the authority of the apostles and those they have ordained, or are you among those who have "went out from us without our authorization"? Or in other words, who has authorized the pastor of your church?

Your pastor was ordained by your denomination? So where did the higher-ups of your denomination get their authority? Most likely, your denomination was started ad hoc in the last 400 years, meaning that its authority didn't originate with the apostles 2000 years ago.

Your pastor was chosen by a vote of the congregation? Popularity doesn't equal God-given authority. The apostles were not picked by popular vote, they were sent by Jesus, the source of all authority. If a person who wants to lead a church gathers a group of people around them to affirm them, it doesn't give them any more authority to lead the Body of Christ than if those who were teaching that Christians must be circumcised had done the same.

Your pastor just simply started his own church and attracted his congregation by his preaching/charisma/leadership abilities? Then your pastor and your fellow congregants obviously disagree with the apostles in Acts 15 that authorization matters.

The only Church authority mentioned in the New Testament is that of Jesus passed down through the apostles. If your pastor has not received authorization from that line, then he or she in the same ecclesiastical position (though I'm sure not theological position) of those who were teaching that Christians must be circumcised and were condemned by the apostles.

Who Says Rob Bell is a Heretic?

2011-03-07T21:06:00.000-06:00

If you haven't heard, evangelical pastor Rob Bell is being accused of heresy. But not by the CDF (though they probably would if he was Catholic).

It hasn't even come out yet, but other evangelicals are accusing him of heresy, or at least calling him a false teacher, based on what appears to be some sort of universalist stance (according to the promo-video and publisher's description) in his up-coming book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.

It may be too early to tell if Rob Bell truly is a universalist. But I have found the evangelical backlash as being, frankly, very revealing of how bankrupt sola scriptura is. This is because, if Rob Bell were Catholic, and if he is actually putting forward some kind of universalism, then he would indeed be teaching heresy...

...but I can say that as a Catholic because I believe that God has placed an organization here on earth to make such a determination. And universalism has indeed been rejected by that organization, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

It's not simply my opinion of what Scripture teaches against Bell's. We Catholics believe that Jesus gave his apostles authority, which was passed down through apostolic succession to the Magisterium of the present day, to settle just these kinds of disputes. But subtract the Magisterium from the picture, as evangelicals have done, and these kinds of disputes can be no more than just that, differences of opinion.

Yes, evangelicals want to base everything on the Bible, but I'm sure Rob Bell quotes (and perhaps twists) Scripture in his book, which means evangelicals who disagree with his conclusions have a limited number of options.

First, evangelicals can enter into respectful debate with Rob Bell on a level playing field. They can produce arguments with the hopes of showing Bell the error of his ways. Maybe they'll convince him, maybe not. But if not, which I think is most likely, I'm sure that the evangelicals who are upset by Bell will not be content to agree to disagree. Surely, many people will be misled, or at least confused, by someone as prominent as Bell teaching something like universalism. Such evangelicals rightly see universalism as attacking the heart of the gospel and not something that can be left to the realm of non-essentials. Which leaves them with the other options:

Next, when biblical arguments (even correct ones) fail to persuade, evangelicals can cite Christian history - which is exactly what one prominent evangelical, Justin Taylor, did. A CNN article reports:

"Though [there are] many things that separate Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians, 'this isn’t one of them,' Taylor said. 'We’ve historically agreed on many things, the person of Christ, heaven and hell. This isn’t a peripheral academic debate...' "

I've heard a similar argument used by evangelicals against the acceptance of homosexual behavior by Christians. This is what Christians have always believed, they argue. Evangelicals are learning what Catholics learned a long time ago. Since we believe that God's full revelation occurred at a point in history, with no need to be added to, when disputes arise we should favor the older doctrine over the newer one. This is partly what Catholics are doing when they cite what they call Tradition.

The problem with evangelicals ever citing "the historically Christian view", however, is that they've already rejected a large number of historically Christian beliefs. They've already rejected parts of the historic Bible, apostolic succession, the Councils, the Mass, the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, regenerative baptism, all of the sacraments, the infusion understanding of justification, the traditional view of sex and marriage, everything about Mary and the saints, and the use of icons in worship, to name a few. If a person wants to be in line with what has been historically Christian, evangelicalism is the wrong place to be.

When presented with arguments from history, Rob Bell can give the same reply that other evangelicals give regarding the beliefs just listed: I don't care what the Church says or what has been passed down in the Tradition, I'm going to follow (my own interpretation of) the Bible.

There's still one option left: an evangelical can just simply declare Rob Bell as wrong. No need to humbly say that one reads Scripture differently, but just that Bell is wrong. And this is what Justin Taylor has done. Taylor has come right out and declared Bell "a false teacher".

But what gives Taylor, or any other evangelical, the authority to declare something like that? In other words, who put him in charge? Just because someone might be a popular, or even a well-respected evangelical leader, it doesn't give them to the authority to decide definitively what is or is not God's teaching.

And some evangelicals realize this. They see that being humble means not imposing one's own interpretation. But others, rightly convinced that universalism is uncompromisingly wrong, but finding themselves with no living authority on which to fall back, will take themselves (or their favorite leader) as the authority by which to condemn everyone who disagrees. Thus, as I argued back when I first started this blog, sola scriptura tends toward either pluralism or fundamentalism.

When I was at Wheaton College, the "Harvard of evangelical schools", I had an evangelical friend once lament to me how the theology teachers would never just come out and call something heresy. They always simply presented different sides of the debate, maybe "showed their cards" and let you know their viewpoint, but always left the door open for you make your own decision. I told him that what he was desiring was the God-given authority of the Catholic Church.

And the authority of the Catholic Church is exactly what evangelicals need in this situation: an authority, not just a human authority, but one with real authority from God, to step in, stand up for the truth, and legitimately declare for us what is and is not heresy.

Escaping Ecclesial No-Man's-Land

2011-02-05T01:22:00.007-06:00

You're an evangelical Christian. You've been attending a Southern Baptist church. You move to a new town. Do you:
(a) automatically find a local Southern Baptist church and join it, or
(b) try out a few different churches regardless of their denomination - or lack thereof - and find one that you think fits you?

In my experience, almost all evangelicals today choose option 'b'. Why? Because few evangelicals actually identify as Southern Baptist, or Methodist, or Presbyterian, etc. Most will only go as far as to say that they happen to be attending a Southern Baptist church (if they are aware of their church's denomination, and many are not, and don't care either). If they're more advanced theologically, they might say, for example, that they are 'Reformed' in their theology, which might somewhat limit their choice of denominations, but they are still usually uncommitted to any one denomination or organization.

Such people, I say, are in an ecclesial no-man's-land.

They ultimately exist no where. They are unconnected in a real, tangible sense. They are Christian islands which, granted, may choose to freely associate with other believers, but only as long as they find that it "works for them". At best, some evangelicals might be willing to stick it out with a congregation through a hard time. But at the end of the day, it's only because they choose to do so (or because they think God is calling them to for the time being), but not because they think that that particular congregation is where they must be in any absolute sense.

This is because, for most evangelicals, Christianity consists almost exclusively of one's own personal relationship with God. And the reason an evangelical goes to church is to be helped with his personal relationship with God. If an evangelical feels like a church is doing that (e.g. has music he "connects with" and regularly delivers inspiring, relevant sermons), he'll attend and perhaps get involved. If he tries out a church, and he doesn't like the music, doesn't feel inspired by the preaching, doesn't like the community, or thinks it's too big or too small, etc., he'll move on to somewhere else.

There are several problems with this. Here are two:

First, for such evangelicals, there is ultimately no real, tangible accountability. Any given church/denomination can only keep a person accountable, whether it be morally or theologically, as long as the person lets the church/denomination do so. If the person reaches a point where they can no longer swallow a particular church's teaching, they can simply leave and continue their personal relationship with God - which is all that they think really matters anyway - somewhere else. Thus, at the the end of the day, Christianity can be whatever one wants it to be (or however one happens to think God wants it to be for him). (But you object: "The Bible is my accountability!" My short response: Your interpretation of it might be, setting aside the question of which Bible.)

Second, and probably most important, God is saving a people. There is only one Bride of Christ (Eph 5). There is only one Body of Christ (1 Cor 12). There is only "one flock and one shepherd" (John 10.16). Scripture calls us to be "perfectly united in mind and thought" (1 Cor 1.10). And Jesus prayed that all of his followers would be one as He and the Father are one, so that "the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17.23) God is looking to unify all people in Christ, not to have a bunch of otherwise unconnected followers.

Many evangelicals, I believe, would honestly respond: But what other option is there? No church is Christ's Church. This is the best anyone can do.

But what example do we find of the Church in the Acts of the Apostles? Do we find it legitimate for individual Christians to believe whatever they want to believe and associate and dissociate with the greater group as they please, an ecclesial free-for-all? No! We see an organization with authority from Jesus himself, led by the apostles and those to whom they have also passed on authority, tangibly in charge of all those who would claim faith in Jesus (see Acts 15; also, all of the NT letters). That authority has been passed on, in apostolic succession, to our present day, and has been preserved in the bishops, priests, and deacons of the Catholic Church.

Jesus founded a Church, and the gates of Hades have not overcome it (Matthew 16.17-20); it is still here for us today. Christ has kept his promise and has not abandoned us (Matthew 28.20).

You can escape ecclesial no-man's-land.

In the Catholic Church, there is a sure place to belong, a true home for us in the faith that does not stand or fall based on our preferences or whether we think it is giving us the church experience we are looking for, but rests firmly on the fact that it was founded, and is today shepherded, by Jesus Himself. And knowing that it is the true Church of God, with Christ as its head, we can submit ourselves and be truly molded, morally and theologically, into faithful members of the people of God.

Ephesians 2.19-22
¹⁹So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, ²⁰ built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, ²¹ in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. ²²In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

A People of the Cross

2011-01-08T17:44:00.002-06:00

"May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." - Paul's letter to the Galatians 6.14

The cross is at the center of everything that we do as Catholics.

Our churches display a representation of Jesus on the cross at the front and center of their sanctuaries. The sides are adorned with images of the Stations of the Cross. A crucifix often leads the procession at the beginning of Mass. Our greatest churches are laid out in the shape of a cross. And it is with the holy Sign of the Cross that we mark ourselves before prayer and strengthen ourselves in times of temptation and hardship.

When we are baptized, we are truly baptized into Christ's death, so that we may be raised with Him (Romans 6). In our Holy Scriptures we are exhorted by Christ himself that in order to be his disciple, we must deny ourselves, take up our crosses daily, and follow him (Luke 9). Some of our saints have even been given the gift of stigmata, or the miraculous appearance of the wounds of Jesus on their own bodies.

For the way of life is the way of the cross.

And so it is for this reason that the very climax of our most sacred worship, the Mass, which we celebrate every Sunday - nay, every day - is the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross made present in the Eucharist. It is not only a remembrance of the cross but a re-presentation of it: the work of our salvation is made sacramentally present at every Mass. As we kneel in the midst of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, we in a mysterious way kneel before the holy cross of our salvation.

It is His cross from which we draw all grace, hope, and strength. Indeed, this Eucharist, in which our salvation is made present, is "the source and summit of the Christian life" (LG 11, CCC 1324).

Because we Catholics are a people of the Cross.

Quick Update and a Happy New Year

2011-01-01T15:57:00.002-06:00

Hello bloggerfriends,

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

It's been a few weeks since I posted something, and I just wanted to let you know that I'm still here. I've just been taking these last few weeks off to be with family and relax. I'll be back up and blogging soon here hopefully.

If you're looking for something good to read, I recommend Called to Communion, which has many articles discussing the differences between protestants and Catholics. I found the article The Canon Question, which argues that protestants cannot adequately account for why they accept the biblical canon that they do, to be helpful. Also, if you aren't aware of it already, there's a great new website, http://www.churchfathers.org/, where you can find quotes from the early Church fathers sorted by topic.

Peace,
Brantly

Relics of Saints and the Early Church

2010-12-10T22:38:00.002-06:00

If anything is distinctive of the devotional practices of the Catholic Church in relation to those of evangelicals, it's the Church's practices surrounding relics.

Relics are the remains of those recognized as saints, whether it be a part of their body or something they owned*. Catholics carefully preserve relics, give a great deal of honor to relics, and even sometimes claim miracles in connection with relics. Catholic say that they are honoring Jesus' servants and in doing so are really honoring Jesus. But to evangelicals, the whole practice seems at best very strange and at worst idolatrous. It would be unsurprising for an evangelical to dismiss the whole thing as just another late medieval corruption of the Catholic Church.

Such an assumption, however, would be wrong. In actuality, the practice comes from the Holy Scriptures and from the early Church.

First, here is an example from the Holy Scriptures in which God works a miracle through the dead remains of one of his holy servants:

2 Kings 13.20-22:
Elisha died and was buried. Now Moabite raiders used to enter the country every spring. Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.

Next, here are two examples from the Holy Scriptures in which God works through objects belonging to holy people (in the first case, belonging to the most Holy One, Jesus our Lord):

Mark 5.27-29:
When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering.

Acts 19.11-12:

God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

Regarding the practice of preserving and honoring relics, here are two (of many) records of what the early Church believed:

Martyrdom of Polycarp**, 17; events took place A.D. 155, written soon after:
[After Bishop Polycarp was martyed in a Roman stadium] But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said...being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!

Notice that it is the pagan Roman official, at the suggestion of the Devil, who doesn't want the Christians to take relics because the Christians might end up worshiping Polycarp instead of Jesus. And it is the Christians who, while fully conscious of the fact they worship God alone, still honor His servants by honoring their relics, which is the stance of Catholics today, 1900 years later.

St Jerome, Letter 109, 1; written ~A.D. 400:
We, it is true, refuse to worship or adore, I say not [just] the relics of the martyrs, but even the sun and moon, the angels and archangels, Cherubim and Seraphim and every name that is named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come. For we may not serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Still we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are. We honour the servants that their honour may be reflected upon their Lord who Himself says:— he that receives you receives me."

The Catholic practices surrounding relics was not a later invention of the Catholic Church. It is based on the Bible and has been passed on from the early Church.

*These are called first and second class relics respectively. Third class relics, unmentioned here, are objects that have been touched to a first or second class relics (usually something like a prayer card).
**Author unknown

Those "Extra Books": Who Really Changed the Bible

2010-12-06T01:24:00.000-06:00

Evangelicals are very suspicious of "those extra books" that Catholics have in their Bible, and often make the accusation that Catholics "added them to the Bible". Evangelicals are confident that they are using the true, original Bible. These claims, however, simply do not stand up to historical facts.

In the first three centuries of the Church, there was no total consensus as to what books should be in the Bible. Few people doubted the canonicity of the four gospels and parts of the OT like the Pentateuch. But regarding other parts of the Old Testament or the rest of the New Testament there was much dispute.

For example:
Origin accepted what's today called the Catholic canon, but minus James, 2nd Peter, 2nd John, and 3rd John, and plus the Shepherd of Hermas.

Athanasius compiled a list of 66 books he considered to canonical in A.D. 367. Since his Old Testament, like Protestants today, had 39 books, Protestants often cite his list as evidence that the Protestant canon existed in the early the Church. It is true that Athanasius' Old Testament indeed had 39 books, but not the same books as Protestants. He rejected Esther and included Baruch.

Books whose inspired status (or the lack thereof) was disputed at one point or another in the early Church include: Esther, Hebrews, James, 2nd Peter, 2nd John, 3rd John, Revelation, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Shepherd of Hermas, 1st Clement, and the Didache.

So how was the canon eventually settled?

Around 383, Pope Damascus I commissioned Jerome to make what we now call the Vulgate translation of the Bible in Latin. The canon he instructed Jerome to translate was the same as the Catholic canon today.

In 393, the Synod of Hippo, a local council of north African bishops led by St. Augustine, affirmed a canon list that's the same as the Catholic canon today. This list was reaffirmed at the local councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.

In other words, the question was eventually settled by the Church authorities - the same way the questions were settled regarding the Trinity and the person of Christ.

But where was the Protestant canon of Scriptures? Not a single person or group in the early Church believed the Biblical canon to be what is now the Protestant canon. The Protestant canon, though many evangelicals believe it to be the original canon, did not exist yet and wouldn't for a long time.

For the next 1000 years in the West*, all Bibles were comprised of the Catholic canon. Whether the book was Genesis or Tobit, it was revered as Scripture, read in church, and quoted as an authority.

It wasn't until the 16th century that we finally find the Protestant canon, when the Reformers chose to remove books from the Bibles that everyone already used.

(And so it was in response to this attack on the Holy Scriptures that at the Council of Trent the Catholic Church re-affirmed once and for all as dogma what the biblical canon was. Catholics were not creating their canon for the first time or adding books to the canon at the Council of Trent, as is too often ignorantly charged by evangelicals.)

Catholics have a bigger Bible than evangelicals. But this is because Protestants removed books from the Bible, not because Catholics added "extra books".

*I say "in the West" because some groups in the East continued to dispute the book of Revelation, as well as accept a few books that Catholics reject. In any case, they don't lend any support to the canon used by evangelicals, which is the focus on this post.

The Two Advents of Our Lord

2010-11-28T21:56:00.001-06:00

Today is the first Sunday of Advent!

Yep, it's time to prepare for the celebration of Christmas. But Advent is about much more than that. As we prepare for our celebration of Christ's birth into the world, we are called to prepare ourselves for his imminent return. The two go hand-in-hand, for we can only truly appreciate the significance of his first coming if we also understand the significance of his second coming; our celebration of his birth means nothing if we are caught unprepared for his second.

This is because, although his first coming was in poverty, humility, and peace - and most who were living at the time were unaware of it - his second coming will be all together different: in power, glory, justice, for all the world to see.

Regarding this second coming, Scripture tells us:
"[A]s lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (Mt 24.27)

"[And] at that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens." (Mk 13.26-27)

"Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books... Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." (Rev 20.11-12, 14-15)

And so it is not without reason that the Church has ordered the Lectionary such that we Catholics are given, at the very first Mass of Advent, this solemn warning from Gospels to ponder:

"Jesus said to his disciples: “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. In those days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day that Noah entered the ark. They did not know until the flood came and carried them all away. So will it be also at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be out in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left. Therefore, stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come. Be sure of this: if the master of the house had known the hour of night when the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and not let his house be broken into. So too, you also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come.' " (Mt 24.37-44)

The world is counting down the shopping days left until Christmas - a sign that the world does not have Christ's second coming in view. Let us instead, as we celebrate Christ's first coming into the world, be preparing ourselves for his second.

Some Thoughts About Mary for Evangelicals

2010-11-23T10:54:00.000-06:00

Evangelicals usually get a little nervous when a Catholic starts talking about Mary.

But there is no need to be nervous! Mary - in many ways - is one of us. She's a member of the Church, a follower of Christ, and redeemed by his merits on the cross.

Mary was also the first person to whom God announced the arrival of the Messiah. She was the one through whom the Incarnated Son of God came into the world. Her flesh was connected to the flesh of the the God-man for nine months. She was one of the few, and probably the most intimate, witness of Christ's life before his ministry. And when many of Christ's followers fled during his passion, she was found right there at Golgatha, close enough to the cross for Jesus to be able to announce to her that John was her son, and that she was his mother.

It sounds as though Mary is a very significant figure in salvation history, and might deserve a little bit more attention than simply a song sung at Christmas about what she did or did not know. (Beautiful song, by the way)

Here are two things we can certainly learn from Mary:

First, Mary is an incredible example of faith. When the angel Gabriel announced to her that she would conceive and bear the Son of the Most High, she did not get into a wrestling match like Jacob; she did not argue like Moses; she did not demand a sign like Gideon. She responded: "I am the Lord's servant, may it be to be as you have said." We are called to this kind of faith.

Second, a person's last words recorded in Scripture are often taken to be particularly significant. St John the Baptist's last recorded words are: "I must decrease, while He [Jesus] must increase." And St Thomas the Apostle's final words say of Jesus, "My Lord and My God!" Mary's last recorded words we find at the marriage at Cana. When the wine ran out, she turned to the servants and, referring to her son, told them: "Do whatever he tells you."

Let us follow Mary's example of faithfulness to her Lord, and our Lord, Jesus Christ.

A Call For Courage

2010-11-14T17:00:00.000-06:00

Much of the evil in our world exists, not because too many people live their lives as though truth and goodness are absolutes, but because so few people do.

For every perpetrator of genocide, there are thousands of passive ones. For every celebrity who squanders his wealth, there is a crowd of gratified gawkers. For every person who publicly perverts our human sexuality and degrades the human body, there are too many who, by cowering in silence, give their assent.

We are told to think that it is when people believe something too strongly - too definitively - that violence becomes inevitable. We are told to believe that by sacrificing absolutes we can achieve peace. And yet holding that all beliefs are merely opinions does not breed peace but indifference. And indifference is but a fertile ground for injustice.

Peace is our goal, but we should accept nothing less than true peace. As long as there is injustice, there is no peace. As long as there is ignorance of the truth, there is no peace. As long as there is sin, there is no peace. As long as there be people who live here on earth outside the sheepfold of Christ, there is no peace. True peace is found only in Jesus Christ and in the Church that He established.

And so I call us to have courage, not to compromise; to seek truth, not amiable company; to love, not to ignore; to serve God, not man. Let us take truth and goodness seriously and live our lives accordingly.

We all, in one way or another, have become culpable, if in not our actions, then at least by our inaction, by our unwillingness to always stand up for what is right.

Kyrie eleison. St Athanasius, St Maximus the Confessor, and St Thomas More, please pray for us. Amen.

How the Early Christians Worshiped

2010-11-04T23:09:00.000-05:00

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Acts 2.42)

An evangelical worship service these days usually goes something like the following: There's about 30 min of praise music led by a band, and then a 30-45min sermon. There might be short, extemporaneous prayers said by various leaders at the front at different points. The Lord's Supper is generally celebrated somewhere between once a month and a few times a year, and the bread and the wine is usually held to be merely symbolic.

The Catholic Mass has this basic outline: The Scriptures are read aloud, there's a homily, the congregation offers prayers together as a congregation, the Eucharistic prayers are offered by the priest to which the congregation responds with the great 'Amen', and finally the Eucharist is distributed to all baptized Catholics in good standing in the Church. The Eucharist, or Lord's Supper, is always celebrated, and it is held that the bread and the wine actually become the true Body and Blood of Jesus.

But how did the early Christians worship?

We actually know. St Justin the Martyr was a 2nd century philosopher who converted to Christianity. Christianity was outlawed in the Roman Empire, but Justin believed that this was the case largely due to misunderstandings of Christianity held by the Roman officials. So he wrote a letter around A.D. 150 to the Emperor which we refer to today as The First Apology. In it he explains the Christian faith of his day. At the end of this letter, he describes when and how Christians worshiped in his day:

[O]n the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. (67)

Sound familiar? It's because its the same thing that Catholics do today, 1900 years later.

He also describes more clearly what the early Christians believed about the nature of the Eucharist:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 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 by the Word of God, had both 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. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. (66)

(Sidenote: He clearly believes that baptism does something, that it's not just a symbol. When a person is baptized, there is "remission of sins" and "regeneration".)

He calls it the Eucharist. He specifically says that the bread and wine are received "not as common bread and common drink", but that this food "is the flesh and blood of that Jesus". He then goes on to prove this by quoting Jesus when he said "This is my body" and "This is my blood" - words that evangelicals dismiss, without Scriptural warrant, as merely symbolic.

The Mass, the Catholic belief in the real presence - these were not late medieval corruptions. They have been there from the very beginning. Evangelicals are the ones who have done something new.

Evangelical worship would have been foreign to the early Christians. The Cathoic Mass, in its fundamental form, is how the early Church worshiped, as passed down from the Apostles.

That Fateful Reformation Day

2010-10-31T16:00:00.002-05:00

Today is the 493rd anniversary of when Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany. Although Luther was not yet intending to break from the Church at that point, many mark it at the symbolic beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Some Protestants thus celebrate today as Reformation Day.

Yet the Reformation has led to nothing but disunity, confusion, and a chaotic muddying of the theological waters of Christendom. Even if you are one to think that Luther was right that the Catholic Church had become irreparably corrupted, the Reformation did not lead to a clearly unified Reformed alternative. The Reformers protested not only the Catholic Church but each other as well.

Protestant theologian and professor at Duke Divinity School, Stanley Hauerwas (pictured below), agrees that Reformation Day is not to be celebrated. Here are a few quotes from a famous sermon he gave in 1995 on Reformation Sunday:

Reformation names the disunity in which we currently stand. We who remain in the Protestant tradition want to say that Reformation was a success. But when we make Reformation a success, it only ends up killing us. After all, the very name ‘Protestantism’ is meant to denote a reform movement of protest within the Church Catholic. When Protestantism becomes an end in itself, which it certainly has through the mainstream denominations in America, it becomes anathema. If we no longer have broken hearts at the church’s division, then we cannot help but unfaithfully celebrate Reformation Sunday.
[...]
I often point out that at least Catholics have the magisterial office of the Bishop of Rome to remind them that disunity is a sin. You should not overlook the significance that in several important documents of late, John Paul II has confessed the Catholic sin for the Reformation. Where are the Protestants capable of doing likewise? We Protestants feel no sin for the disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to confess our sin for the continuing disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to do that because we have no experience of unity.
[...]
...Catholics understand the church’s unity as grounded in reality more determinative than our good feelings for one another. The office of Rome matters. For at least that office is a judgment on the church for our disunity. Surely it is the clear indication of the sin of the Reformation that we Protestants have not been able to resist nationalistic identifications. So we become German Lutherans, American Lutherans, Norwegian Lutherans. You are Dutch Calvinist, American Presbyterians, Church of Scotland. I am an American Methodist, which has precious little to do with my sisters and brothers in English Methodism.
[...]
So on this Reformation Sunday long for, pray for, our ability to remember the Reformation – not as a celebratory moment, not as a blow for freedom, but as the sin of the church. Pray for God to heal our disunity, not the disunity simply between Protestant and Catholic, but the disunity in our midst between classes, between races, between nations. Pray that on Reformation Sunday we may as tax collectors confess our sin and ask God to make us a new people joined together in one mighty prayer that the world may be saved from its divisions.

October 31st, 1517 was a fateful day. Let us all, Protestant and Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox as well, repent of our sins and pray that God may bring us into full unity once again.

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." - Paul, 1st Corinthians 1.10

"May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." - Jesus, John 17.23

Truly Universal

2010-10-25T00:33:00.003-05:00

The Church is truly Universal. It encompasses the whole world, and includes people from every nation, but it also embraces the whole of the Christian life. Any aspect of the Christian life you might be looking for can be found in the Catholic Church. The Church certainly does not live out all these things perfectly in all times and places, but it has a deep tradition in all of them from which those searching today can draw from. Here are some examples:

Looking for monasticism? The Church has a long, un-broken tradition that goes back to the early Church from which to draw. St Benedict, St Scholastica, St Dominic, St Clare (pictured on left), St Francis of Assisi (pictured on right), even the late Bl Mother Teresa - for both rural and urban monasticism, these are all saints who not only left behind religious orders that still exist today, but they are people from whom Catholics can draw inspiration and guidance.

Want a place that is open to mysticism? The Catholic Church has one of the richest mystical traditions in all of Christendom, with such greats as St John of the Cross, St Teresa of Avila, St Hildegard of Bingen, St Padre Pio, and St Catherine of Sienna.

Maybe you need something to sink your intellectual teeth into. The Church has a wonderfully deep intellectual tradition which spans 2000 years, a tradition that has survived the transitions from antiquity, to the medieval period, to the Enlightenment, and through the Modern period all the way into the Post-modern period, and includes some of history's greatest minds like St Augustine, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, Bl. John Henry Newman, and the still-living Jean-Luc Marion.

So you're a scientist: you're not alone in the Catholic Church. The way has been paved for you by people such as John Philoponus, Pope Sylvester II, Gregor Mendel (right), Blaise Pascal, Rene Descartes, and of course Galileo Galilei.

Artists have long been supported and embraced by the Church. Whether it be architecture, music, painting, sculpting - the Church has not only been a long-time patron, but has seen it as crucial to the life of the Church.

And the Catholic Church isn't just for the supposed elite but has a place for popular piety as well. Things such as special devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, or the Holy Face of Jesus, pilgrimages, and popular spiritual practices are embraced in the Church.

The Catholic Church recognizes and embraces the reality of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, including speaking in tongues and prophesy.

In a world that thinks that the supernatural is merely a superstition of the past, the Church still believes in miracles. The Church takes miracles so seriously that it has investigated hundreds if not thousands of alleged miracles and claims to have validated many, even very recently.

If you want to feel connected to history and Christians who have come before you, look to the saints, the memory of which have been preserved in writing and artwork since the early Church. Even further, the Church has maintained relationships with them to which all of us have access.

But what of the tangible problems in our world? The Church has a very well-developed theology regarding helping the poor and the sick, and has put it into practice: in addition to its unparalleled network of hospitals and organizations to help the poor throughout the world, there are figures to look to as well, such as the Bl Mother Teresa, St Damien of Molokai, Dorothy Day (left), and St Nicholas of Myra. Regarding solving these problems on a societal scale, the Catholic Church actually coined the now popular term social justice.

Now I'd like to hear from you! I've only mentioned a few main categories. Comment about aspects of the Church that are important to you or that you feel add greatly to the Church's richness and beauty.

Our Most Interesting History

2010-10-18T13:44:00.002-05:00

As I have read about Church history, I have come across little tid-bits here and there that I think are simply great stories. Here are a few. Enjoy!

- St Nicholas of Myra, on whom Santa Claus is based, was a bishop in the 4th century and attended the Council of Nicaea, which was convened to settle issues related to Arianism and Trinitarianism. It is said that at one point the debates became so heated that St Nicholas slapped Arius in the face. He was quickly removed from the council.

- St Francis of Assisi, the 13th century monk and Church reformer, had the first reported case of stigmata, a condition in which the wounds of Christ appear miraculously on a person's body. He is also credited with creating the first crèche, or Nativity scene display, as well as bringing Eucharistic Adoration to Italy.

- St Joseph of Cupertino was 17th century monk who also happened to be mentally challenged. In spite of this, he was known for his holiness and great devotion to God. He also was blessed with the gift of spontaneous levitation against his will, a gift that manifested itself during public, crowded events on several occasions - once even during a papal audience. The great fame and following brought on by his frequent levitations worried Church officials and he was eventually ordered into seclusion. He is the patron saint of, among other things, aviators and the mentally handicapped.

- The 1st Vatican Council, held 1869-1870, was called off part-way through because the Kingdom of Italy had attacked and captured the Papal States, totally surrounding Rome with armies.

- 13th century saint Thomas Aquinas is one of the most important theologians in Church history. His four volume work, the Summa Theologica, remained unfinished, though not because of his death exactly. While celebrating Mass one day, he had a mystical experience of Jesus. Afterwards, he refused to continue his theological work, saying that it all "seemed like straw" compared to the actual reality of God. A couple months later he was summoned by Pope Gregory X to attend the Council of Lyon. While on his way to it, he hit his head on the branch of tree and was dead a few days later.

- St Irenaeus, in his late 2nd century book Against Heresies, relates this extra-biblical story passed down to him about the Apostle John: "John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving [the heretic] Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, 'Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.' " (3.3.4)

- The 13th century nun St Lutgardis claimed that the then-recently deceased Pope Innocent III appeared to her. He was engulfed in flames and explained to her that he was in purgatory for three faults he had committed during his life. He implored her for prayer help saying, "Alas! It is terrible; and will last for centuries if you do not come to my assistance. In the name of Mary, who has obtained for me the favor of appealing to you, help me!"

- Some claim that if you zoom in on the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe that miraculously appeared on the cloak of St. Juan Diego when he unveiled his cloak to his bishop, you can see reflections in her eyes of those who were present.

Which Essentials

2010-10-11T12:16:00.002-05:00

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity"

Such is an oft repeated motto among Protestants, including evangelicals.

The idea is simple: Let us remain unified on what is really important, but let's not allow the unimportant or the trivial to divide us. And of course, as we navigate such matters, let always remember love. This principle is wonderful. But I question whether evangelicals can really uphold it, at least the first two elements.

For, in order to maintain unity in essentials, and allow liberty in non-essentials, groups of Christians must first determine which beliefs are essential. How do we go about determining which beliefs are required, which beliefs on which we're unwilling to compromise? Who gets to determine it for the group?

For evangelicals, the answer will most certainly include the Bible. Evangelicals subscribe to sola scriptura, the belief that Scripture, by itself, is the highest authority. So one answer to the problem might be something like this: whatever the Bible teaches is essential for belief. But there are at least two problems with this.

First, Scripture must be interpreted. Experience proves that many sincere, devoted, well-educated, Bible-believing Christians can, and in fact often do, disagree about what Scripture says. This makes it difficult to determine exactly what Scripture is saying.

Second, perhaps as a result of the type of disagreement just described above, though I have heard of evangelicals claiming to follow the above principle, no evangelicals that I've ever encountered have actually subscribed to the principle that whatever the Bible teaches is essential for belief. Many issues that the Bible clearly has something to say about - such as the nature/necessity of baptism, end times, angels, church governance, etc - most evangelicals, although they may or may not have their own opinions, often do not consider to be essential for belief. Instead, we would tend to call someone who does subscribe to this kind of principle a fundamentalist.

Many evangelicals, however, implicitly as well as explicitly, subscribe to a somewhat softer version of the above principle which attempts to take into account the problems addressed: whatever the Bible teaches clearly is essential for belief. But this only pushes the problem back, for how do we determine what is clear in the Bible?

Unfortunately, the all too often answer for evangelicals today is that the Bible is clear, and is therefore teaching something essential, regarding whatever on which there seems to be a consensus among people they respect, trust, or have come in contact with. However, as time has gone on, more and more issues on which there used to be a consensus have been challenged by sincere Bible-believing Christians. This has meant that the list of things that evangelicals take to be essential has only been shrinking. Besides, truth is not settled by vote. We are called to follow the Truth of God whether or not it is popular or appeals to our preferences.

So how are we to solve this very serious problem? What I believe to be the answer, I'm sure, is no surprise: the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church. God did not give us the definitive revelation of Himself only for us to have no way to knowing for sure what it is. Jesus, the God-man, chose apostles and gave them the authority to be the authoritative teachers of the faith. These apostles passed this authority on to successors through ordination, who passed it on to others, all the way to our present day. These successors, guided by the Holy Spirit, have the ability - more than that - the right to determine what is or is not essential for belief.

It is, of course, possible for a non-ordained person to arrive at the right conclusion regarding a particular issue of theology, even through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But we have no way of determining who has arrived at the correct conclusion, or who has been guided by the Holy Spirit. Ordination, in succession of the apostles, provides us a visible means of knowing that at least these people are guided by the Holy Spirit and have authority from God to tell us the correct interpretation.

Thus, for Catholics, there is a workable, plausible means that's based on Scripture and Tradition by which what's essential or non-essential can be determined with certainty. This allows for Catholics to actually have "in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity."

Discipline isn't Doctrine

2010-10-03T23:14:00.000-05:00

Catholics say that they don't change their beliefs.

But Catholics have changed many things over the years, even in our own lifetime. The Mass used to be in Latin, now it's in the vernacular. Catholics used to be forbidden from eating meat on Fridays the whole year, now it's only forbidden on Fridays during Lent. Aren't these changes? And if the Church can change these things, why can't they change some of their wacky beliefs like the male-only priesthood?

At the heart of these types of questions is a misunderstanding of another important Catholic distinction: doctrine vs. discipline.

Doctrine is what the Church teaches. Among the Church's doctrines, Church dogmas, more specifically, are teachings that, guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, have been solemnly and irrevocably defined as necessary for adherence by all Christian people. These can be beliefs but can also be ways that the Church functions. Examples range from the doctrine of the Trinity to the priesthood being restricted to males. Changing social conditions are of no relevance to these things. Being divinely ordained, the Church has not and, in fact, cannot change these things even if she wanted to.

Discipline is the way that the Church has simply chosen to function at a particular point in history. These are perhaps guided by the Holy Spirit, but are not of divine law. Thus, these are changeable. These things are not, however, completely arbitrary. Matters of Church disciple are intended to promote proper functioning and spiritual health in the Church and are based on the teachings of the Church. But these may be adjusted or abolished if they are found not to work or if changing social conditions make them no longer appropriate.

For example, the Mass was in Latin because the Church thought that it was a good idea for a certain time, for various reasons including uniformity, unity, etc. But the Church never thought that it was divinely ordained that the Mass be in Latin for perpetuity. Recently, due to the different conditions of our times, the Church decided that it would be better if the Mass was in the vernacular. So they changed it.

The Church required that all Catholics abstain from meat on all Fridays throughout the year as a way of fasting together as a Church (from this developed the Friday night Fish Fry tradition in Catholic communities). This wasn't required by any divine law, and the Church has since decided that it was no longer something they want to require.

Perhaps someone might make the charge that these are convenient, and even unnecessarily confusing, categories for the Catholic Church. If the Church decides to change something, they can just claim it was discipline all along. And if they are stubborn about changing something, they can just claim that it's doctrine and can't be changed.

First, it is no secret whether something is a matter of Church discipline or Church doctrine. Dogmas, in particular, are always clearly made known publicly.

Second, all churches have the distinction between doctrine and discipline, whether or not they talk about it in those terms. A church might require that anyone who wants to become a member of their church must attend their four week membership class. The church doesn't think that this is a matter of divine law. The church might one day decide that they want to make their membership class five weeks long or even scrap the class all together. The rule is still in force as long as it's a rule - if someone wants to become a member they need to follow the process - but it's changeable. On the other hand, a church might view their belief that the Bible is the Word of God as unchangeable.

Rules of discipline are decided upon by the Church and may be changed in the Church by any legitimate authority, and in fact have been changed frequently throughout history. Catholic Church doctrine, on the other hand, originates from God and has not and cannot be changed.