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.

What Can We Learn From Pascal's Wager

Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist and philosopher during the 1600's. He famously stated a thesis that has come to be known as Pascal's Wager. It states essentially that since one doesn't lose anything by living as if God exists one should strive to do just that.

It has been widely criticized through the years even by contemporaries of Pascal, but can we learn anything from it today. Or is it merely a weak attempt at a bare-bones case of apologetics.

I got to thinking about this topic the other day, when I overheard some of my fellow vendors having a discussion about living your whole life for something, only to find out it was wrong. When I asked what they were being so philosophical about so early in the morning I was told they were discussing whether or not it made sense to believe in God. One of the guys was expressing his lack of desire to follow the rules of a billion dollar industry.

I immediately said that's Pascal's Wager, does it make sense to believe in God, in the face of a lack of proof. It's a topic I have wrestled with somewhat myself. Let's just say there is a reason I love the name Thomas. When I read the story of Thomas's unbelief at the Resurrection I see a lot of myself in that tale.

First let's take a look at Pascal's intended audience, he was a skeptic writing for skeptics and yet he comes away from this argument taking the view that it is strong indeed. He finished his argument with this thought: "this is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it."

Peter Kreeft one of the preeminent apologists alive today used a series of examples to demonstrate the near absurdity in not taking Pascal's Wager, writing the following:

Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new "miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free—wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to?

Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?

Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million?

No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to "bet" on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win. (From The Argument From Pascal's Wager)

Mind you as Kreeft points out, even Pascal realized this was a low ladder, but perhaps a necessary one for those on the fence. For if you live the faith without having it you may one day realize you had it all along.

Anthony Hopkins priest character in the film The Rite has a couple of great lines on skepticism and faith. One in which he talks about more or less walking through the darkness lost, then he feels something like the fingernail of God scratching away the dark and bringing him back into the light.

The other one is: "You know, the interesting thing about skeptics, is that we're always looking for proof... the question is, what on earth would we ever do if we found it?"

Chalk that one up as another amazing line in a career full of them for Sir Anthony. 

Pascal's strongest piece of his argument hits the skeptics hardest. In dealing with the idea of agnosticism he comes out blasting. Kreeft again has perhaps the best summary of Pascal's argument against agnosticism likening us to ships needing to pull into port in a storm (God) or waiting for the weather to clear so we can be sure it is the right port. Kreeft rightly says we cannot sit at anchor we are actively moving in the stream of life decisions must be made. There is no room for agnosticism's measured know-nothingness.

Pascal implores those reading his argument with a simple philosophy toward accepting it:

"If you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith, and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have. . . . They behaved just as if they did believe."

It is this last that even today nearly 400 years later still holds a lesson for us. Whether you already believe or you doubt act as though you do believe and in time you will likely find that you do in fact. Whether or not you have multiple proofs of the existence of God. 

Even if you merely act according to the moral precepts and ideas of what C. S. Lewis once called Mere Christianity you will be a step ahead. Because in living a Christian life you will inspire others to be better people.

Not to get all let's gather in a circle and sing Kumbaya, but seriously what is so foul about trying to fashion your life to more closely resemble the example Jesus gave us all.

Perhaps that is what we can learn from Pascal's Wager, that it doesn't take all that much to live up to the Christian ideal and it sure won't cost you anything. But could in fact benefit you beyond measure.