Transubstantiation Pt. 3

Previously I said I wanted to take an in depth look from the totality of the Bible as to how Transubstantiation is definitively supported with the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. As I mentioned Hiram Diaz seems to find no single verse of scripture from which to see a defense of the Catholic position.

Strange, because the totality of scriptures seem to me to be loaded with them. The first reference to a blessing of bread and wine comes in Genesis 14:18 when Abram meets Melchizedek. Abram is returning from battle when the priest (Melchizedek) comes out and blesses the bread and wine and gives it to him.

Fine you might say it's bread and wine. That doesn't support Transubstantiation on its own, but it helps build the house. We see in Hebrews 7 that Melchizedek is a type of Christ. He offered bread and wine to Abram, which is the same thing Christ offers to the Twelve that night in the Upper Room.

While they were held as slaves in Egypt the Israelites found someone who would lead them to freedom, Moses. God told the Israelites to celebrate a special feast, Passover. He would go through the land slaughtering the firstborn sons of Egypt, but the Jewish people would be spared because of blood from a freshly slaughtered Lamb on their doors.

The Passover feast had some special rules. Each family was to take a spotless firstborn male lamb from their flock, slaughter it and roast it. They were also told that the entire lamb had to be consumed, nothing could be left overnight. They were also to throw out all the leaven and eat only unleavened bread.

Interestingly enough especially later on anyone desiring to take part in the Passover feast had to be a Jew. It was a closed feast, that will come back up later.

I mentioned previously that Hiram Diaz refused to answer my question regarding whether the lamb was to be eaten. I think he knew where I would take him if he answered me. Revelation that great and terrible book that closes scripture. In between all of the frightful bits of prophesy Revelation is actually a great Passover liturgy.

Interestingly in chapter 5 we see Christ referred to as the lion of Judah and the root of David. However when St. John looks he sees a lamb appearing as though it has been slain Rev. 5:5-8. Why is the victorious Christ, vanquisher of death, crusher of sin, seen in His heavenly glory sitting on His throne as a newly slain lamb? Because as we learn in Hebrews 13:8 Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Since time began He has been the lamb slain for the remission of sin.

That being said, if even in his heavenly glory Christ is the newly slain lamb of the Passover. He must even during the Incarnation have still existed outside of time as humans know it, thus for Him the Law has always been fulfilled. Thus rendering any attempt to turn Transubstantiation into some sort of sin against the Law moot.

Let's go back to that Upper Room, Christ having "eagerly desired" to celebrate one last Passover with His apostles reclines at table with the Twelve Lk. 22:12.Christ then takes the bread and wine blessing them and sharing them with the apostles: Cf. Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; 1 Corinthians 11:21-25.

Curiously the institution narrative is absent in John's Gospel. However in John 6 we see the famous Bread of Life discourse in which Christ explains that for His disciples to have eternal life they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Some of you out there might now be saying sure but none of this says that a priest can say some words over a wafer of bread and a cup of wine and make it truly the Body of Christ or the Blood of Christ. Indeed that is never directly taught. However it is clear that Christ intends for the Apostles to be the beginning of a new ministerial priesthood. As such He implores them to repeat the blessing over the bread and wine "Do this in memory of Me."

The New Testament ministerial priesthood is perfectly foretold in the Old Testament as Malachi 1:11 shows. The prophet describes a time when God's name would be great even among the Gentiles and a "perfect offering" would be made to Him, from the rising of the sun to its setting.

Pretty sure you will find a Catholic Mass being offered somewhere in the world every hour of every day of every year. Save for Good Friday, no Mass that day, no sacraments at all in fact, except in cases of dire need.

So Communion for a Catholic is all about receiving the Lord whole and entire: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity with every reception of the sacrament. It is a closed feast like the OT Passover after all we have to protect the solemnity and dignity of such a great mystery.

The actual mechanics of what happens to transform the bread and wine are just that a mystery, part of the great exercise of faith.

For me the faith stands or falls on this one thing, that is why I go to such lengths to defend it. It's also why I get so angry about people who are so derisive about it, especially without a sound attempt at a refutation.

Transubstantiation and Invincible Ignorance

So Saturday night I just couldn't sleep, stupid Daylight Savings Time messes me up every time. I started to cruise around some old internet faves, including Hiram Diaz's blog. I know I shouldn't go looking for a fight, but sometimes it's irresistible.

Mr. Diaz was at it again back in January attempting to refute Transubstantiation one more time. According to himself he has done it up real nice. However he still falls into the same logical pits he always has. First off stating in his post that there was in fact no scriptural basis for the most central of Catholic beliefs.

Well of course I had to respond. Citing John 6: 53-58 I reminded him that Christ in fact issued the command His own self. Five times in five verses in fact, Christ says just that. I knew what would be coming and sure enough his initial reply was a no reply. I was "question begging," sure I said I am begging you to answer to my questions.

Bottom line I still haven't gotten an answer as to how one should interpret those verses seeing as they entail a direct command from Christ. Just a lot of dancing around about how my position entails a logical contradiction, or how it violates the Levitical laws.

I'm even willing to stipulate it does violate the Levitical law, however Christ fulfilled the law. Which is another sticking point for us because we differ as to when and how the law was fulfilled.

Largely Diaz lashes about wildly kicking at a wall in a house built on rock and saying there I knocked your whole house down. Well the big bad wolf routine is amusing but ineffective.

Perhaps he fails to realize that Catholic dogmas all build and layer into one another; thus refuting Transubstantiation requires a little more than throwing around the idea that it violates the Law. It requires more than his pet theory regarding the state of Christ's body and whether the Real Presence is Christ's mortal or Resurrected body.

I have largely decided that Diaz is perhaps one of the invincibly ignorant. I thought they were a myth, like Sasquatch or the Loch Ness Monster.

I even attempted to reframe the question asking about whether Old Testament Jews were required to eat the Passover Lamb. He flatly refused to answer the question, I feel he probably knew (thus maybe his ignorance is a choice and not invincible) that I would lead him from the OT to the New showing how Jesus as the new lamb of the Passover had to be eaten.

It's an interesting look through the lens of salvation history one I will go even further in depth on tomorrow.

The Year of Living Catholicly

The title of this post refers to my planned New Year's Resolution. I intend to spend next year trying to truly live my Catholic faith. This could be a bigger undertaking than any I have thus far tried.

The idea sort of germinated for me from a few places. One of them being Matthew Kelly's wonderful book Rediscover Catholicism. In it Kelly declares that one of the major reasons for so much of life's problems being a largely listless, Godless world. A world seeking, but not knowing what to truly seek.

Another germination point for me was the realization that I want my kids to grow up as more than Cafeteria Catholics I want them to understand the Why's and How's of our faith.

After a recent difficult patch at work, I really turned to the Lord and the Saints. I knew I needed help to break past the things that were holding me back. I wasn't meeting my weekly production standards and didn't know where else to turn. I started a novena to the Sacred Heart, and to St. Joseph, and I started just praying to Therese of Lisieux. It worked I suddenly started exceeding my standard and doing much better at work.

I never do manage to pray nine nights in a row on my novenas, the weekends come and I am always too tired or distracted to say my prayers. That's a bad thing it is one of the things I want to fix.

So I have been developing a five point plan: Rosary, Fasting and Abstinence, Mass, Confession and Scripture.

I plan to start saying the Rosary, at least once a week for starters, with an intention to increase the number of days I say it.  I picked the Rosary because I know it is a devastating weapon in the Holy war those of us in the Church Militant are engaged in. I didn't want to just commit to a certain amount of time in daily prayer I wanted a meaningful prayer life.

I am going to return to the proper tradition of fasting and abstinence on Fridays, in honor of the Lord's Passion. I might just be an "early adopter" here as there is wind that Cardinal Dolan as head of the USCCB might just return all US Catholics to the proper Friday rules. Bully for him I hope he does.

As for Mass I don't think my work schedule will allow me to make daily Mass too often, but I need to desperately improve my overall attendance. I also am going to (for the first time ever) make it to Mass for all of the Holy Days. After all why shouldn't I pay proper reverence to my creator. Besides frequent reception of Communion will help strengthen me for the rest of my plan right.

Confession is good for the soul they say right. Well I know mine always feels better after a visit to the "Sin Bin". Confession can be a very nerve racking experience. But it is so nice to walk out afterwards, perform your penance and know that the Lord loves you and forgives your misdeeds.

And the final point in my plan, I'm going to knuckle down and read the Bible. The whole thing. I made good headway a couple years ago but this time I'm going to do it. I will also try and push through the Catechism too.

I figure if I can do all of that, not only will I be a better Catholic, I will probably be a better husband and father, too. Which isn't a bad thing since baby number three is on the way. I should probably brush up on my husbanding and fathering.

If I can find a few spare minutes each week I intend to sort of post a weekly report card as I go... Gives me a year's worth of weekly blog posts right.

Liberty, Tyranny and The First Amendment

In the years after America won its freedom from Great Britain the colonies drafted and eventually approved a Constitution. To secure ratification of the new founding document concessions had to be granted, including the addition of a Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments were intended to secure our basic liberties. Including the right of a person to observe their faith as they see fit.

The Obama administration has put that basic First Amendment right under attack. The Health and Human Services department, issued a mandate declaring that because Catholic social service programs don't serve only Catholics they aren't worthy of a conscience exemption regarding provision of contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs. So in essence the church is being punished for living out the words of Her founder....Matthew 25:34-36, tells us what Christ expects of us, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick. He didn't instruct us to only do those things for people who believe the same as we do.

In fact one of His most illuminating parables is the story of the Good Samaritan, a man who did all of those things for someone who was essentially his enemy.

The HHS mandate was for all intents and purposes crafted by the ACLU. The ACLU wrote a mandate that is in effect in only three states (California, New York and Oregon.). Even within that mandate there were ways that Catholic social service agencies could find relief. However the new mandate from HHS closes all of those avenues.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the head of the HHS is herself a Catholic, which makes the forcefulness of this legislation all the more disturbing. However it is heartening that Sebelius has been denied Communion both in Kansas and Washington, D.C.

All of this leads me to the thought that we once fought a war to ensure our freedom of worship, now it is under attack by our very own government.

So our government is now telling us how to practice our religion, how to live our faith. That doesn't sound very much like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has come out in force, with 169 of roughly 183 bishops issuing statements condemning the new mandate. The assorted Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals all urge the faithful to action.

Indeed action is sorely needed. As most of the letters no doubt urge us as faithful Catholics to do we should fast, pray and contact Congress and the President as well as Secretary Sebelius. Urge them to reconsider and rewrite this mandate.

Support Marco Rubio who recently introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 to Congress.

These are the times that try men's souls...Words as true now as they were in late December of 1776. Thomas Paine was referring to the then months old War for Independence.

He might just as easily be describing another tyrannical act by a far more worrisome menace. Duly elected officials trampling on the rights won by the blood of the very people who Paine wrote to some 236 years ago.

Surely the great martyrs of the past, men and women who were fed to lions; or boiled in oil; or crucified; or burned at the stake, must be looking at this persecution and urging us to fight and defend the faith they died for; the Truth that cost them their lives.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

Does Purgatory Disprove Roman Catholicism?

Purgatory is defined by the Catholic Church as the place of the final purification of the Elect. It serves the purpose of allowing those souls whose earthly life finished while they were imperfectly in God's friendship the final purification so they can enter Heaven in a state of perfect holiness (cf. Rev. 21:27).

In a recent post on his blog, Hiram Diaz, claims that Holy Mother Church's belief in such makes her claim of being the church founded by Christ a falsehood. According to the subtitle of his post it is a scriptural refutation; however in all of his bullet points I see only one mention of scripture (Jer. 31:34), and very little refutation.

I like this particular verse which says in effect that God will forgive us all of our sins and remember them no more. However in no way does this refute Purgatory nor Roman Catholicism. It seems to me that to disbelieve in the overwhelming scriptural evidence that would seem to support Purgatory is an attempt to deny God's eternal mercy.

First let's unpack that verse from Jeremiah and show how it in no way refutes Purgatory. The idea of Purgatory is that it is intended to help cleanse a person from all attachments to sin, from love of self, so that when they enter Heaven they will have only love of God.

In 2 Sam. 12 we see the story of King David's affair with Uriah's wife. David confesses his sin to the prophet Nathan, who tells him The Lord has taken away your sin and you shall not die (2 Sam 12:13). However as punishment for that sin the child conceived of that union dies (verse 18).

We also see in 2 Maccabees that Judas Maccabeus offers prayers and sacrifices for the dead (2 Macc. 12:43-46). Now, Mr. Diaz of course would dispute the canonicity of 2 Macc. however even if it isn't canonical it is no less accurate as a historical document. Thus showing that Jews in the time of Christ believed in offering prayers for the dead. Prayers which would not be efficacious for those in Heaven nor Hell, so they must be intended for those in a third place, i.e. Purgatory.

We also see Jesus mention this third state of post-Earthly life. Matthew 12:32 sees Jesus telling the disciples that speaking ill of the Son of Man can be forgiven; but that blaspheming the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in this age nor in the age to come. Which again shows that there are in fact sins which can be remitted after death, and also some sins so severe they can never be forgiven.

We also see in St. Luke's Gospel (Lk. 16:19-31) the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Now the rich man is suffering in his state, and wants to warn others. Since compassion is a gift of God's grace he is not in Hell as that would be the permanent removal from the grace of God. And he is not in Heaven since he is in fact in a state of discomfort. He must be in Purgatory.

St. Paul's epistles also feature numerous references to the idea (such as 1 Cor. 3:10-15).

It seems the flaw in Diaz's attempt to discredit Holy Mother Church comes from his poorly constructed straw man detailing what Purgatory is and is intended to accomplish.For as I have shown even scripture details that God can forgive us our sins, yet still require us to make reparations for them. Much like if a father loaned his son the car for the night and the son had an accident; the father might forgive the son for having the accident but still require him to pay for the repairs.

God is both boundless mercy and boundless justice. This is one of the many paradoxes of the faith that we must come to terms with. In His desire that all men shall be saved (1 Tim. 2:4) God is merciful. In His desiring reparations for all of our transgressions (Mt. 5:26) He is infinitely just.

Finally let's take a look at St. Augustine's writings concerning the idea of Purgatory:

"For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,--not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man's graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another's wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come."  
Augustine, City of God, 21:13 (A.D. 426). 
 
"But since she has this certainty regarding no man, she prays for all her enemies who yet live in this world; and yet she is not heard in behalf of all. But she is heard in the case of those only who, though they oppose the Church, are yet predestinated to become her sons through her intercession...For some of the dead, indeed, the prayer of the Church or of pious individuals is heard; but it is for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of such compassion, nor so well that they can be considered to have no need of it. As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of the eternal fire. For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said, "They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come.' But when the Judge of quick and dead has said, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,' and to those on the other side, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels,' and 'These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life,' it were excessively presumptuous to say that the punishment of any of those whom God has said shall go away into eternal punishment shall not be eternal, and so bring either despair or doubt upon the corresponding promise of life eternal."  
Augustine, City of God,2 1:24 (A.D. 426).

A New Blog To Follow

As a faithful Catholic the pro life issue is a big one for me. I just started reading a new blog tackling the subject purely from the Natural Law perspective.

Naturally Prolife looks to the Natural Law as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas and as expounded by the Magisterium epecially Bl. John Paul II. The blog's author Christopher Apodaca, writes meaty articles that examine the issue and tear it into bite sized thoughts without watering down the arguments.

His scholarship is evident throughout as his articles are chock full of quotations from Aquinas, JP II, and others such as C.S. Lewis.

I'm sure Apodaca's isn't the only blog to tackle the Pro-Life issue from this perspective, but the strength of the writing and the ability to take such a difficult argument and boil it down make his blog worth reading.

In the interest of full-disclosure, I know Chris, we went to school together. He is an incredibly well reasoned man and a faithful Catholic. Don't let the fact that I know him keep you from reading his blog though it is good stuff.

The Early Christians are Inadmissible...

The title of today's post comes from my ongoing opponent. Who informed me that my use of the practices of the Early Church was inadmissible evidence to support my assertion that his faith was not that of the apostles as he claimed.

Seems a bit like a judge deciding to throw out potentially damaging eye-witness testimony, purely because it is damaging.

To be fair this was his initial quote: "My religion is the same as that of the apostles. I can prove it from the Scriptures. Yours is not." 


His words will be in blue....


I responded to that with a 10-point list of ways in which his religion differs from the one taught by the Apostles. 

My List:

1. They believed in regenerative baptism (of infants even)
2. They believed in the Real Presence
3. They quoted, used, knew and taught ergo believed in the Septuagint
4. They submitted to the authority of the Church
5. They called Mary Blessed
6. They taught 7 sacraments
7. They didn't believe Sola anything
8. They believed in a ministerial priesthood
9. In fact they had Bishops, Priests and Deacons
10. They refrained from eating meat on certain days...

This is where the discussion got funny...

His response

1. They believed in regenerative baptism (of infants even)
There is not a single verse of Scripture that (a.)teaches regenerative baptism and (b.)infant baptism.

This one made me laugh... I admit I have to give him a little credit for point b as there truly are no specific verses which say infants were baptized, there are numerous instances however of "whole households" being baptized, so is he really saying none of those households had infants or very small children...Argue from silence much...

However to say not a single verse teaches regenerative baptism, really, really, St. Paul uses the words washing of regeneration in his letter to Titus. (Titus 3:5-6) Further Acts 22:16 tells us Arise be baptized and wash away your sins...

My favorite baptism verse in Acts however has to be Peter telling the people in Acts 2:38-39 that baptism is for the remission of sins and that the promise is to "you and your children."

Seems one has to go a long way to avoid or ignore these references to baptism as a regenerative act.  

2. They believed in the Real Presence
They did not believe your doctrine of Transubstantiation. If they did, then they were deceived by the devil or Christ was a sinner, I proved this to you. You merely touted back: “bbbbbbbut the early church!” That’s not proof. That’s called begging the question.

This has been his argument all along...the apostles were deceived by the Devil or Christ was a sinner, it's a tiresome argument that I have rebutted on this blog several times.

 Here is the post in question where he supposedly rebutted my defense of Transubstantiation. As I said not much of a rebuttal. But let's look at it. 
Deceived by the Devil: Doesn't hold water Christ told his believers unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you. Jn. 6:54-55. Jesus in fact adamantly over the course of  John 6 tells his listeners some 12 times that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. I don't know about anyone else but if God tells me something 12 times I might listen to Him.

His other argument about Christ being a sinner stems from his errant belief that if Christ told his disciples to eat His flesh and drink His blood before the "fulfillment" of the law that makes Him a sinner. I pointed out that He abrogated the law by issuing the command to eat His flesh. Not so says my opponent after all the law wasn't fulfilled. His argument stems from Jesus saying It is finished must be the fulfillment of the law. I referred him to a post from Shameless Popery where Joe investigated what exactly was finished... 
I don't think he read it because he continues to parrot this argument. Regardless Christ was fully divine therefore even in the Incarnation a part of Him exists with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the eternal Now. When you are outside of time all things are currently the present so it doesn't really matter when something happens in earthly time. 
Also notice the quip here about "The early church,"
 
3. They quoted, used, knew and taught ergo believed in the Septuagint
(a.)Many people knew the Septuagint, (b.)show me where the Septuagint is quoted, (c.)show me where they show their faith in the Septuagint.

Point a here is self evident so we won't go there. Point b is something I have done many times, showing him numerous references to the sheer volume of NT quotations that come directly from the LXX canon. This link from Scripture Catholic was largely ignored, or made fun of in previous discussions. Now to point C logic dictates that the Lord and the Apostles would quote from Scripture that which they believed to be Scripture. Ergo the Septuagint was considered Scripture by the Lord and the Apostles

4. They submitted to the authority of the Church
They submitted to the authority of the Lord God Christ, not the church. Insofar as a minister of the Word of God is in accordance with the Word of God that person is to be listened to. Your religion contradicts the Word of God at many points. Therefore, it is not to be listened to. I say that on the authority of Christ, the only Head of His Church. 

Once again let's look to Scripture shall we: Acts 15 details Paul and Barnabas going to the Apostles for a decision regarding how Gentile Christians are to live among Jewish Christians. Notice here Paul was a "minister of the Word of God" appointed by Christ himself, why couldn't he merely make the decision why did he need to return to Jerusalem and meet with Kephas and James and the rest. Notice also that the council essentially ends when Kephas (Peter) says his piece. Now true James closes the council but it is Peter's words that have the entire crowd silenced. Which is of course a rebuttal to the anti-Catholic rant at the end of this point, Christ gave Peter His flock asking Peter three times to tend his sheep, feed his lambs. Jn 21:15-17.
 

5. They called Mary Blessed
Of course they did, and they called one another blessed. For the Scriptures say: “Blessed be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed US with EVERY spiritual blessing…” They didn’t pray to her – they knew that prayer to anyone but God is idolatry.
 
I won't attack this one from the Marian angle just from the Communion of Saints. I can't specifically say whether Mary was prayed to in the Early Church I would suppose she was, however I can say the Early Church did pray to the Saints for intercession. Which they continue to do today, which they did in Jesus time as well (2nd Mac. 12:42-46). Now granted the Maccabees reference is more about offering prayers for the dead.
 "Even if we make images of pious men it is not that we may adore them as gods but that when we see them we might be prompted to imitate them." Cyril of Alexandria, On Psalms 113 (115) (ante A.D. 444)." This was true then and it is true now...

 "Only may that power come upon us which strengthens weakness, through the prayers of him[i.e. St. Paul] who made his own strength perfect in bodily weakness." Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 1:1(A.D. 380).

"But God forbid that any in this fair assembly should appear there suffering such things! but by the prayers of the holy fathers, correcting all our offences, and having shown forth the abundant fruit of virtue, may we depart hence with much confidence." John Chrysostom, On Statues, Homily 6:19 (A.D. 387).

Darn it, it looks like early Christians thought highly of the intercession of Saints....No wonder he didn't want me to use them in my argument. 

6. They taught 7 sacraments
lol. Where? Show me from the Scriptures. 

Evidently he thinks the Sacraments are funny...Curious. This one I think will be merely Scripture references without comment.
Baptism: Already covered but St. Paul details how baptism is the new circumcision many times in his epistles. 
Eucharist: John 6, Luke 22:19-20, Mk. 14:22-24, Mt. 26:26-28, 1st Cor. 11:23-26
Confirmation: Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6, Heb. 6:2, Rev. 9:4
Marriage: Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18
Ordination: Acts 6:6, Numbers 27:18
Confession: Jn 20:20-23
Anointing of the Sick: Mk. 6:13, James 5:14-15
 
7. They didn't believe Sola anything
They believed in Sola Scriptura (2 Tim 3:14-17, Ps 119, etc),
 
No, Protestant proof text be damned, they didn't. Reading the passage from 2nd Timothy it is clear that St. Paul is encouraging Timothy in knowledge of the Old Testament as he directs him to the Sacred Writings he had known since childhood. Seeing as the New Testament was as yet unfinished this can't be an appeal to Sola Scriptura. Nice try. Ps. 119 is great let your words be a lamp unto my feet, light unto my path sure...but it doesn't preclude other things. Also St. Paul makes numerous references to Traditions (paradosis in Greek) which are unwritten and handed on by word of mouth. 
 
Sola Fide (Gen 15:3, James 1:18, James 2:23, Eph 2:8-10, Romans 3-4, John 3:16, etc), 

When Paul speaks of works, he is generally referring to "works of law" (read also Galatians) which refer to works done under the Mosaic law. The Jews believed that they still had to perform their ritual works to be saved (e.g., circumcision). In Acts 15, Peter declared that circumcision was no longer required for salvation. We are saved by grace, not works. When Paul refers to "works," he is also referring to any type of work where we attempt to obligate God and make him a debtor to us. The Jews were attempting to do this in their rigid system of law. 

http://scripturecatholic.com/justification_qa.html#gracevworks 

James's poor misunderstood, proof-texted, epistle also doesn't teach Sola Fide no matter how much anyone wants it to. James 2:20-24 in totality repeatedly says that faith needs works. In fact vs. 24 says Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
So if you torture the Scripture you can make it say Sola Fide, that doesn't make it right.
To be fair I edited his comment here and chose merely to address the two most heretical solas. 

8. They believed in a ministerial priesthood
Scripture please. You’ve asserted this before and when I asked for Scripture you ignored me. “Show me the [Scripture]!” 

Mt. 28:19 Baptism is a priestly function, The Last Supper instruction to do that in remembrance of Him is a priestly function...Forgiving of sins was a priestly function...
 

9. In fact they had Bishops, Priests and Deacons
Those words are used in the New Testament, but they don’t refer to what you think they refer to :/
 
Oh really Inigo Montoya...Why because you don't want them to? Or do you have an actual argument here? Have those offices changed in 2000 years, certainly. Has the office of President changed in the US over the last 300 years, certainly. Does that mean Barack Obama is more or less President than George Washington (politics aside), no of course not.
 
10. They refrained from eating meat on certain days...
I’m sure some of them did. Paul admits this much in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10, you know, those passages where he explicitly refutes your religion on this matter and says:
 
Again not much more to report here than his anti-Catholic rantings. These verses do not refute Catholicism, they merely show that judging others for what they chose to do in regards to eating is sinful. But I suppose it's a nice try....

It is more than clear that the only reason to refuse to entertain the thoughts of early Christians is purely because it undermines his argument that he somehow holds the faith of the Apostles. It shows an intriguing amount of intellectual dishonesty.

Tying Up Some Loose Ends....

In recent posts I wrote a defense of  Transubstantiation and showed some writings from Ignatius of Antioch. It occurred to me today that the two dovetail nicely into a third topic. That topic being the idea that one of Catholicism's bedrock claims for Transubstantiation relies on John 6. Ignatius was a student of John's and he was so blatantly Eucharistic in his thinking so clearly a defender of the Real Presence that that should speak volumes to us about the topic.


Now if John was the last living apostle (tradition says he was), and one of his students teaching from one of his texts says that we are to take Christ literally in the account of the Bread of Life Discourse (Jn. 6:48-70); wouldn't he (John) have done something (written something against Ignatius, counseled others that he (Ignatius) was "off the reservation", something, anything).

It stands to reason it's not like the early church was free of disagreement or that the Church Father's didn't know how to call someone out for teaching what they thought was heresy. I mean I realize this was a couple hundred years later but just look at how St. Jerome hands Rufinus his ass:

"I have learned not only from your letter but from those of many others that cavils are raised against me in the school of Tyrannus, "by the tongue of my dogs from the enemies by himself" because I have translated the books Περὶ ᾿Αρχῶν into Latin. What unprecedented shamelessness is this! They accuse the physician for detecting the poison: and this in order to protect their vendor of drugs, not in obtaining the reward of innocence but in his partnership with the criminal; as if the number of the offenders diminished the crime, or as if the accusation depended on our personal feelings not on the facts. Pamphlets are written against me; they are forced on every one's attention; and yet they are not openly published, so that the hearts of the simple are disturbed, and no opportunity is given me of answering."

So clearly church fathers knew how to disagree. Now returning to the topic at hand, men of goodwill can and have disagreed mightily about the Lord's words in John's Gospel as well as other passages Catholics proclaim as teaching the Real Presence; however if a student of the last living apostle was already that far afield how can any of us proclaim the Truth, unless of course that was Truth.

After all John was (to borrow from the six degrees of separation idea) one degree from Christ; ergo Ignatius was only two. Now if someone two degrees from Christ was preaching, teaching and expounding on the idea that He was fully, truly present in the Eucharist. If that wasn't the catholic view, then when did such heresy began and take such root to be the Catholic view.

After all if Christ couldn't maintain His promise to lead us into all truth (Jn. 16:13) or that the Gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against His church (Matt. 16:18). Then He also failed to be with us always even unto the end of the age (Mt. 28:20).

After all Ignatius was as I said living mere decades after Christ and he taught a Real Presence. If that was false then, it would still be false today. However as we see in John 6:55. Christ promises to raise us up on the last day if we "eat His flesh and drink His blood."

ChurchFathers.org has a great selection of quotes from the Early Fathers discussing the Eucharist and the Real Presence. Some of which have been mentioned in this space before.

And if you missed Joe's recent post at Shameless Popery about the Early Church remaining silent in the face of this "heresy" check it out.

Another great post of recent vintage is this one from Brantley over at Young, Evangelical and Catholic.

So if this is such a grave heresy, where is the evidence? Has that big, evil, monolithic Catholic church merely destroyed it all in order to maintain power? Is it hidden in some wing of the Vatican Archives, or could it maybe, just maybe be that Catholics have held the same view for lo, these 2,000 years because the Apostles handed that view on and succeeding generations maintained it as part of the Deposit of Faith.

Thoughts on Ignatius of Antioch

Today is the feast day of St. Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius studied under the Apostle John and became a bishop in Antioch, one of the main hubs of early Christianity. Ignatius also wrote letters so Catholic in their theological bent that John Calvin denounced them as forgeries. That's my kind of Church Father.

Here is an example of the venom Calvin laid out against Ignatius:

"With regard to what they pretend as to Ignatius, if they would have it to be of the least importance, let them prove that the apostles enacted laws concerning Lent, and other corruptions. Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to toleration."

Emphasis added

That's right Ignatius was nauseating to Calvin; let's have a gander at why that might be:

Ignatius on the Eucharist: 

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. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Epistle to the Smyrnaeans Chp. 7

Ignatius on the Authority of Bishops/The Church:

Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, (Matthew 24:25) as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that you all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do you hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.

Epistle to the Ephesians Chp. 6

Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance [of their bishop], but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey [your bishop], in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets.

Epistle to the Magnesians Chp. 3

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.

Magnesians Chp. 7

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 [sic] of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?

To the Trallians Chp. 3

Wherefore, as children of light and truth, flee from division and wicked doctrines; but where the shepherd is, there follow as sheep. For there are many wolves that appear worthy of credit, who, by means of a pernicious pleasure, carry captive (2 Timothy 3:6) those that are running towards God; but in your unity they shall have no place.

To the Philadelphians Chp. 2

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

To the Smyrnaeans Chp. 8

No wonder Calvin didn't like this guy, he is almost obnoxiously Catholic. What with all that Real Presence talk and submitting to the authority of the Church. Perhaps we should all strive to be a little more like him.

And if you want to see true faith in action read his Epistle to the Romans, dealing with his impending martyrdom.

All quotations from New Advent's section on the Church Fathers available here.

Which Came First?

The chicken or the egg? Ok, so today's post will not be about that at all. Rather let's look at which came first the Church, or the Bible and how that informs how denominations view themselves in light of that.

According to the Catholic viewpoint, the Church, Christ's spotless bride came first. In fact Christ Himself instituted it by according Peter a share in the powers He Himself holds in Heaven. In Matt. 16:13-20 Jesus blesses Simon, changes his name and gives him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Pretty weighty stuff, followed in a couple chapters by Christ conferring some of that same authority on the other eleven bishops (Matt. 18:18) of His church.

Christ before His death promised to send another (The Holy Spirit) to guide the church into all truth (Jn. 16:13). The Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles at Pentecost and they began to go out into the world preaching the Good News (Gospel) that the Messiah had come, been crucified and had risen again.

On that first Pentecost St. Peter urged repentance and baptism for the gathered crowd and 3,000 people were added that day(Acts 2:38-41).  

"Only five out of the twelve wrote down anything at all that has been preserved to us; and of that, not a line was penned till at least 10 years after the death of Christ, for Jesus Christ was crucified in 33 A.D., and the first of the New Testament books was not written till about 45 A.D. You see what follows? The Church and the Faith existed before the Bible." An important point as Henry Graham noted more than 100 years ago, in his collection of essays Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church:

"Thousands of people became Christians through the work of the Apostles and missionaries of Christ in various lands, and believed the whole truth of God as we believe it now, and became saints, before ever they saw or read, or could possibly see or read, a single sentence of inspired Scripture of the New Testament, for the simple reason that such Scripture did not then exist. How, then, did they become Christians? In the same way, of course, that Pagans become Catholics nowadays, by hearing the truth of God from the lips of Christ's missionaries."

Graham goes on to make the point that Neither St. Paul, nor any of the other writers of what became the New Testament would likely have felt all that great about their work being intended as the sole Regula Fide of Christianity (as the leaders of the Protestant Rebellion would attempt to make it 1500 years in the future.

"And we can imagine St Paul staring in amazement if he had been told that his Epistles, and St Peter's and St. John's, and the others would be tied up together and elevated into the position of a complete and exhaustive statement of the doctrines of Christianity, to be placed in each man's hand as an easy and infallible guide in faith and morals, independent of any living and teaching authority to interpret them...

No one would have been more shocked at the idea of his letters usurping the place of the authoritative teacher—the Church, than the great Apostle who himself said, 'How shall they hear without a preacher? how shall they preach unless they be sent? Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ...True, he [St. Paul] was an Apostle, and consequently inspired, and his letters are the written Word of God, and therefore are a final and decisive authority on the various points of which they treat, if properly understood; but that does not alter the fact that they nowhere claim to state the whole of Christian truth, or to be a complete guide of salvation to anyone; they already presuppose the knowledge of the Christian faith among those to whom they are addressed; they are written to believers, not to unbelievers; in one word, the Church existed and did its work before they were written, and it would still have done so, even though they had never been written at all."

Graham goes on to make the Catholic Church's point that the totality of Scriptures (particularly the New Testament) are Her book, to Her alone was it entrusted.

"What follows from this is self-evident. The same authority which made and collected and preserved these books alone has the right to claim them as her own, and to say what the meaning of them is. The Church of St. Paul and St. Peter and St. James in the first century was the same Church as that of the Council of Carthage and of St. Augustine in the fourth, and of the Council of Florence in the fifteenth, and the Vatican in the nineteenth—one and the same body—growing and developing, certainly, as every living thing must do, but still preserving its identity and remaining essentially the same body, as a man of 80 is the same person as he was at 40, and the same person at 40 as he was at 2."

"Rome claims that the Bible is her book; that she has preserved it and perpetuated it, and that she alone knows what it means; that nobody else has any right to it whatsoever, or any authority to declare what the true meaning of it is. She therefore has declared that the work of translating it from the original languages, and of explaining it, and of printing it and publishing it, belongs strictly to her alone; and that, if she cannot nowadays prevent those outside her fold from tampering with it and misusing it, at least she will take care that none of her own children abuse it or take liberties with it; and hence she forbids any private person to attempt to translate it into the common language without authority from ecclesiastical superiors, and also forbids the faithful to read any editions but such as are approved by the Bishops."

 Because of the facts of history (namely the Church existing before the writing, compiling and codifying of what Graham terms the Christian Scripture) we (Catholics) have two fountainheads of Divine Revelation (Scripture and Tradition). Neither one contradicts the other and neither one contains the totality of the other. As then Cardinal Ratzinger (now of course Pope Benedict XVI) notes in God's Word (pg. 71)

"We can further note that the New Testament Scriptures do not appear as one principle alongside apostolic tradition; still less (as is the case with us), do the New Testament Scriptures, together with the Old Testament, stand as one single entity “Scripture”, which could be contrasted with “tradition” as a second entity. Rather, the complex of New Testament event and reality appears together as a developing dual yet single principle, that of gospel; as such, it is contrasted, on the one hand, with the Old Testament and, on the other, with the specific events in the subsequent age of the Church."

So Catholics have as Pope Benedict pointed out a concept of "gospel" that encompasses not merely Scripture but also all of those things that weren't written down (Jn. 21:25). St. Paul speaks many times of these traditions and urges his charges in various letters to carry on those things.  

It wasn't until Martin Luther in the 1500's when those Traditions came under attack as somehow less than the true deposit of Faith (2nd Tim. 1:13-14). Luther and those who followed after him tried to divorce the book from the church "The pillar and foundation of the Truth" (1st Tim. 3:15). We can see how well that worked out for them by the sheer number of Protestant denominations all claiming they follow the Bible alone.

Pope Benedict answered the idea of Sola Scriptura in God's Word:

"Trent had established that the truth of the gospel was contained “in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus”. That was (and is to this day) interpreted as meaning that Scripture does not contain the whole Veritas evangelii and that no sola scriptura principle is therefore possible, since part of the truth of revelation reaches us only through tradition." (Ratzinger pg. 48)

Beyond that however, we see in the disunity of Mainline Protestantism how Scripture is not perspicuous, especially given the wide ranging disagreements on things like infant baptism, communion, and the number of sacraments. 

As Graham noted the Protestant idea quickly devolves into absurdity: 

On the Catholic plan (so to call it) of salvation through the teaching of the Church, souls may be saved and people become saints, and believe and do all that Jesus Christ meant them to believe and do,—and, as a matter of fact, this has happened—in all countries and in all ages without either the written or the printed Bible, and both before and after its production. The Protestant theory, on the contrary, which stakes a man's salvation on the possession of the Bible, leads to the most flagrant absurdities, imputes to Almighty God a total indifference to the salvation of the countless souls that passed hence to eternity for 1500 years, and indeed ends logically in the blasphemous conclusion that our Blessed Lord failed to provide an adequate means of conveying to men in every age the knowledge of His truth.

Clearly the Church antedates the Bible and as such holds a certain authority regarding the Bible. None of this disputes the material sufficiency of the Scriptures if read without the aid of Holy Mother Church to effect salvation; however it is not the way that was intended in the Divine Plan.

As Pope Benedict points out after all:

"What kind of meaning does talk about “the sufficiency of Scripture” still have, then? Does it not threaten to become a dangerous self-deception, with which we deceive ourselves, first of all, and then others (or perhaps do not in fact deceive them!)?" (ibid. pg 49)

So if the church precedes the Bible, doesn't it then make sense to be in communion with the church that begat the bible; the one church appointed to preserve, protect and defend it as it were.

Jesus and the Church Pt. 2

In yesterday's post we explored whether or not Jesus founded a church. The overwhelming Scriptural evidence would seem to show He did in fact do so. He did so seemingly to prevent said church from falling victim to error. Today let's investigate which church this is. We will also look at some of those longstanding myths regarding the founding of the Catholic church.

Of all the Christian churches only the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic church say that they were founded by Jesus Christ. Both churches lay solid claim to their apostolic succession. However, as we saw yesterday Jesus said He would found his church on Peter. Since the Orthodox churches deny that simple aspect they must not be the True Church.

As an interesting aside having never attended Protestant worship services I have only secondhand testimony, but they either change the words of the Creed (We believe in One, Holy, Catholic...) to small c Catholic or Christian. Interesting dance to have to do, with words that are 1500-plus years old.

So does Jesus desire that his flock should all be one in the church He founded?

Well the most obvious answer to this question in my mind comes from John's Gospel, in Jesus's high priestly prayer. In John 17: 11, 20, Jesus asks God to grant the apostles the unity that He and the Father share. In verse 20 we see Jesus acknowledging that He isn't merely praying for the Eleven (Judas was already lost at this point). He is praying for all of the people who would believe in Him because of their testimony.

Christ desires one flock. As the Good Shepherd He reminds us in John 10:14 that He knows His flock and His flock know him.

Now Peter had been set apart; he is always listed as the first of the Apostles; mentioned more times by name than all the other Apostles combined; and given the command by Christ to tend His sheep (John 21:15-17). Since Christ is the Good Shepherd and Peter is His Prime Minister, Christ sought an Earthly shepherd to guide His flock, knowing He would return to the Father soon.

The early church recognized the Primacy of Peter and those who succeeded him. The church at Corinth sent a letter to Clement seeking his help in regard to some bishops that had been deposed. Now St. John was still alive and was right down the road in Ephesus, but the Corinthians sought the help of the man sitting in the Chair of St. Peter.

Many of the Early Church Father's put down lists of the successor's of Peter, often in an attempt to show that the current pope's decrees where valid and holy since he currently occupied the Cathedra.

St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies written in 180 AD described not just apostolic succession but the line of bishops succeeding from Peter in Rome. Now Irenaeus was a bishop himself, but he didn't try and show his line to be the most important he bowed to Rome.

The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], 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....

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.

But where do we see Scriptural evidence for this succession. In many places, It starts just after Christ's Ascension. Acts 1:20 shows St. Peter declaring that another person should take Judas's bishopric. In the following verses we see the Apostles pray and the lot falls to Matthias, "Who was counted with the eleven."

We also see St. Paul telling Timothy to appoint faithful men to follow after him (2 Tim. 2:2). So we see apostolic succession in history and Scripture. 

Now mind you someone has probably trotted out some whopper like Constantine and a bunch of money grubbing power hungry people founded the Catholic Church as a way to consolidate power/money, etc. 

After you finish laughing send them here, or here. 

So there you have it. Christ founded a church on Earth one that we can follow from its current Earthly leader, Pope Benedict XVI, to its founder Jesus Christ in circa AD 33. Jesus seeks for us all to be one as He and the Father are one (Jn. 17:11). 

Now the answer to our two part question: Did Jesus found a Church? Yes, The Roman Catholic Church. Does He desire His flock shall all be visibly in that church? Yes again. (Jn. 17, Mt. 10:40, Lk. 10:16). 

So whose flock are you in? 

Jesus and the Church

A recent discussion in the comment box at Shameless Popery, plus a recent Facebook discussion led me to what I want to talk about today. To catch everyone up on my train of thought, essentially Joe asked a commenter the following: did Jesus found the Catholic Church, and is it His Will for His flock to be in that Church, visibly?

What a great question right? So without further ado, let's dive into it. I will break the question up into two distinct parts.

I. Did Jesus found the Catholic Church? 

Of course He did. Next... Ok so obviously as a Catholic I believe he did, but let's investigate some of the Scriptural and historical evidence.

First off there are many references in the Old Testament to God giving His people a shepherd (The Pope) so they didn't wander off. Take a look at Numbers 27: 15-17, which tells us God doesn't want His people to be like sheep without a shepherd (h/t Joe). Jeremiah 3:15 tells us that God will send us shepherds (pastors in the DR translation) who are after His own heart to feed us with knowledge and doctrine.

So from just these two references alone we see that God desires His people have some sort of leadership to follow. Continuing in Numbers 27: 18-20 we see Moses anointing Joshua as the successor in authority over the Israelites. This is the succession of authority Christ references in Matt. 23:2. So we have in the Old Testament numerous examples of an authority to lead being handed down from one generation to the next. Through laying on of hands and anointing.

All of which brings me to Matt. 16:13-20. The great threefold blessing of Simon soon to be forever after known as Peter. Christ brought the Apostles to Caesarea Phillipi. As Deacon George pointed out at Mass last month when this was our Gospel reading this wasn't the most hospitable place.

"They are in Caesarea Philippi, a pagan area about 25 miles distant from Jewish territory, with at least 14 pagan temples representing Syrian, Canaanite, Greek and Roman deities. But, in the same location is a mountain; from a cave in it the Jordan River begins, making this location also holy to the Jews."

What an odd place for Jesus to reflect on what the crowd thinks of this "carpenter's son." The Twelve venture as to what the consensus of the crowd is. Jesus is Elijah, or Jeremiah, or John the Baptist. Hebrew tradition maintained that Elijah would return to Earth as the Herald of the Lord. We know Jesus isn't the Baptist (John 1:29) for the two are seen together on more than one occasion.

Jesus presses again "But who do you say I am?" None of the Twelve responds for a moment. Finally Simon blurts it out. "You are the Christ." Indeed Simon. Now Jesus does a couple of things.

• Gives Simon a new more meaningful name. Kephas. Rock. 
• Tells the Twelve that upon this wonderful Rock He would build His church. One of only two recorded times Jesus uses the word church.(Matt. 18:17 being the other)
• Gives Peter the keys of the Kingdom (which we know from Isaiah 22:20-23 means that Peter is now a sort of Prime Minister with the full authority of the King) and tells him whatever he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.

So Jesus will build a Church. And as Archbishop Sheen pointed out this passage reveals a lot about church governance. Consensus of the Crowd doesn't work, they didn't get it right. The unheaded episcopacy doesn't work, they all stood around waiting for a leader. So what does work a Divinely protected leader over the episcopacy. And because he said it better than I could and it would be a disservice to try and rewrite his words here is the point Joe made in a phenomenal post over at Shameless Popery:

"The comparisons to non-Catholic Christianity should be obvious.  Protestantism typically follows (i), and splits into innumerable factions as a result.  On even fundamental issues, they can't form a unified response: some say regenerative infant Baptism, others symbolic infant Baptism; still others symbolic adult Baptism. Orthodoxy tends to follow (ii), and like the other Eleven, largely stays quiet in the face of modern controversies. Without a unified head, it's hard to unify and mobilize the Body, so it too often lies dormant. Certain other groups, like Mormonism, fall into category (iii).  They have a single head, but because he's not protected by the Holy Spirit, he can't get the answers consistently right.

So Christ has just shown us why Protestantism, Orthodoxy, and Mormonism won't work. And He's shown us the necessity of a Divinely-protected papacy, in order to keep Christianity (i) unified, (ii) mobilized, and (iii) orthodox.  But then He does something even more remarkable: He establishes His own Church."

So Christ has now told the Twelve He will establish a Church. Now we are getting somewhere. 

Psalm 127:1 tells us that unless the Lord built the house it is a house built in vain. Jesus just told us He was building a church, so it is precisely because the Lord built the house that it will in fact never see the gates of hell overtake it (Mt. 16:18).

Which all brings us back to our opening question, did Christ build an Earthly church? He says He did, so I take Him at His word. And since no Protestant church claims founding by Christ; Catholicism comes out looking like it might be the clubhouse leader for the church founded by Christ.

Tomorrow I will look at the second part of the question? Does Jesus desire for His flock to be visibly in the church He founded. Also we will debunk some of the popular myths surrounding other founders of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Identity...

One of the great misfortunes of the Post Vatican II church is the slow loss of our Catholic identity. How many Catholics out there know that even with the relaxation of the rules on eating meat on Friday, you are still supposed to withhold something on Fridays, be it meat or something else.

Can.  1249 The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons.

Can.  1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can.  1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can.  1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can.  1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

However with the relaxation of Friday abstinence most American Catholics especially do not observe the Friday penance or fast. In the UK beginning next month the Bishops Conference has restored the ancient Tradition.  That was enough of a jolt for Archbishop Dolan, the head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to blog about it. He issued a think piece questioning the idea of returning to meatless Fridays in the US. 

I say, go ahead Your Excellency. And while your at it, how about ending the US inclusion in the Papal Indult allowing Communion in the hand. On a personal note, my goal is for my own family to begin honoring the ages old tradition of meatless Fridays. With the wife's blessing no less (I was worried about her opinion since she isn't Catholic) and since I will be the one cooking on Friday's at least the family meal will be meatless. She can eat meat if she chooses for lunch. 

It seems that Catholics are losing their identity at a quickening pace. How much can we do to restore some of those old traditions that set us apart. When was the last time you heard Latin at your local parish, not counting the Kyrie.

Catholics used to be identifiable by marks like this, now it seems like we have given way to comfort or ease.  As Archbishop Dolan points out:

"Scholars of religion–all religions, not just Catholic–tell us that an essential of a vibrant, sustained, attractive, meaningful life of faith in a given creed is external markers.

The essence of faith, of course, is the interior, the inside life of the soul.  Jesus, for instance, always reminds us that it’s what’s inside that counts.

However, genuine interior religion then gives rise to external traits, especially acts of charity and virtue.

Among these exterior characteristics are these markers that the scholars talk about.

For some religions, it might be dress; others are noted for feastdays, seasons, calendars, music, ritual, customs, special devotions, and binding moral obligations....

What about us Catholics?  For God’s sake, I trust we are recognized for our faith, worship, charity, and lives of virtue.

But, what are the external markers that make us stand out?

Lord knows, there used to be tons of them:  Friday abstinence from meat was one of them, but we recall so many others:  seriousness about Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation; fasting on the Ember Days; saints names for children; confession at least annually; loyal membership in the local parish; fasting for three hours before Holy Communion, just to name a few.

But, almost all of these external markers are now gone."

Indeed they are Your Excellency. Who is in a better position than yourself to help us to reclaim some of those markers. Obviously some of them may never come back. But if we can start somewhere, even slowly, even something small, we might just begin to make inroads. And if we do that, we might just reclaim some of those souls who have fallen away in part because we stopped taking our faith seriously.

As Fr. Z says, brick by brick, friends. Also seen lately on the wonderful clerics homepage stories concerning the decision in Phoenix to restrict service at the altar to males. And a story about the growing number of parishioners in the Diocese of Madison, Wisc. who attend churches which offer the Tridentine Liturgy, the Extraordinary Form, of the Mass.

I have written in this space previously about my desire to attend a Latin Mass. I know of a parish in Couer D'Alene that is affiliated with the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. They celebrate the older form, someday I will have to journey that way and investigate. I'm quite certain I would feel lost, but the idea of attending Mass celebrated in that centuries old liturgy is exciting.

One of my new tasks for myself is to learn a few of our more cherished prayers in Latin...I found a great website that has the words of the prayers in Latin along with an audio file so you can hear it said. Which I need seeing as I have been deprived of Holy Mother Church's mother tongue all my life.

My goal is to get the Hail Mary, Our Father, Creed and prayer before meals down. It may take me awhile but I want to know at least those few prayers then work on the others.

So my Catholic readers, what if anything do you miss of our Catholic identity?

Musings on the Blessed Virgin

It seems to me most Catholics I know maintain some devotion to our Blessed Mother. And why wouldn't they, who better to turn to the Mary, the obedient, willing handmaiden of God. She should be and is a model of everything we should strive to be as Catholic Christians.

Her ego never puffed up and got in her way over God's divine plan. She willingly and readily accepted the things that were put on her plate. She told the waitstaff in Cana to do whatever he tells you (John 2:5), but was she really speaking to first century waiters or to 21st century Christians.

See here's the thing, she was almost certainly still alive while the Gospels were taking shape, maybe not when they were finally written down. But surely, Matthew, Mark and Luke all could have talked to her about the life of Jesus. John certainly had access to her as she was his adopted Mother, in a more certain way than she is the adopted mother of us all. Anyway, notice the only times she shows up in the story are important times. I think she was making herself small, willingly undercutting things important to her to showcase things important for everyone.

Much like Peter's smallish role in Mark's Gospel. Many scholars now believe that Mark was Peter's secretary and that the Gospel of Mark is Peter's version of events.

It speaks volumes that there is so little written about the woman who would by giving Christ a human nature become the adopted mother of all Christians. Think hard about the times she is mentioned in the Gospels:

The Annunciation
The Visitation
The Birth of Christ
The Presentation in the Temple
The Finding of Jesus in the Temple
The Wedding at Cana
The Crucifixion

So what eight times. Either she was an absentee mother, which we all know isn't true, or somebody soft-sold her importance to the story. One of the most moving moments in The Passion of the Christ is when Mary sees Jesus fall under the weight of his cross, she flashes back to seeing the child Jesus stumble and skin his knee. What a heartrending moment, every parent knows the pain you feel when your child falls and hurts themselves. Imagine watching your only child being led to his execution, not for his own crimes, and falling under the weight of that burden.

Mary, is the saint I turn to most often. Whenever I am feeling lost I almost immediately hear myself whispering "Hail Mary..." Perhaps because she was the Mother of God, perhaps just because she was a mother period seems to almost encourage a sort of homey, comfortable relationship. I find myself praying to her for guidance when I don't know what I should be really praying for, or how to pray for it if I do.

Sr. Mary Ann Walsh referred to her as the milk and cookies of Catholicism. I like the imagery and the thought at work here.

Who better to turn to then your mother with a big plate of cookies and a glass of milk to help you talk through your problems.

One of my all-time favorite "Catholic" jokes tells how Jesus was walking around Heaven one day and saw a lot of people who didn't belong. So he went to St. Peter and said hey Pete why are all of these people here. Peter tells him he has no idea he didn't let them in. So Jesus continues walking the Kingdom and sees his mother sneaking them in.

With the feast of the Assumption having just passed us by, do you talk to your mother often. She wants to hear from you.