Tuesday, December 28, 2010

The Catholic Murder Machine...

...is a myth.  

The Inquisitions... Here's how the Berean Beacon describes the issue:
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/01_On_Catholicism/Systematic_Murder_of_Believers.pdf

Basically, Mr Bennett is repeating propaganda invented by Protestants of the 16th century, the Black Legend, particularly.

The BBC did a program 16 years ago, "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition"... Exposing the myth... And remember, nobody ever accused the BBC of being an arm of the "Catholic Office of Most Holy Propaganda" ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMkjvCKTK3Q



Here's what I've gleaned from research:

The inquisitions weren't concerned about your average citizen who might hold a superstitious belief or practice or who might have eaten meat on Friday a couple times.  They were brought in to deal with people holding major heretical views and propagating them, hence drawing people away from (or preventing them from coming to) Christ.  Sometimes, heretics and heretical movements caused civil-order problems, and rulers don't like that sort of thing.

While it is tragic (to our more enlightened sensibilities) that anyone was killed based on their religious views, we need to realize that medieval views of crime & punishment were vastly different from our modern American system of justice.  Back then, the state considered heresy on par with treason and hence a capital crime.  Often, mobs of citizens were meting out their own justice (burning or hanging) upon those they suspected of heresy or witchcraft. When a ruler suspected heresy in his realm he called for an inquisition from the Church.  (though some inquisitions were initiated by the Church).  The inquisition tribunal investigated the suspect(s).  (Incidentally, the modern investigative method is rooted in those investigative principals implemented by the Church inquisitors.)  Many many people were saved from undeserved abuse and death through these inquests.  Sadly, torture was one method of compelling a heretic to repent, (another "less enlightened" practice of the society of the day), but under control of inquisitors was limited in frequency, intensity and duration. (maybe as damaging as modern CIA "aggressive interrogations" of terrorists). This is in contrast to the secular policy of severe torture and execution for various minor & major crimes.  It was the secular authorities who perpetrated the real heinous tortures and executions.

Suspects who were convicted of heresy had the chance to repent and could then do penance and perhaps some prescribed civil punishment and return to God's good graces.  Those who were found guilty of heresy and unrepentant were handed over to the secular authorities who applied their sentence.  There were, sadly, some rogue Inquisitors who deviated from the Papal guidelines of inquisition, torturing and executing people.


Refer to Scripture to see the origin and purpose of an inquisitorial investigation:
1Cor5:1-5
1Cor5:12-13
1Cor 11:19
Gal 1:6-9

The purpose of an inquisition is to find, within the Christian family, whoever is propagating false teachings or behaving in particularly bad ways.  That person or those persons are then booted out of the congregation if they don't change their ways.


"Inquisition" overview (mentions Pope's apology for abuses):
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm#Why%20did%20people%20punish%20heretics,%20why%20didnt%20they%20just%20leave%20them%20be

Short article on the Inquisition:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/inquis.htm

Wiki entry on Inquisition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition


Articles more or less detailed:
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0075.html
http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/spaninq.txt
http://www.faith.org.uk/publications/Magazines/Jan07/Jan07NoOneExpectsTheSpanishInquisition.html


commenting on BBC's show "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition":
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0008.html

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Salvation Gods Graciousness in Christ

Berean Beacon: Salvation Gods Graciousness in Christ
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/02_Good_News_for_Catholics/Salvation_Gods_Graciousness_in_Christ.pdf

Mr Bennett is right in that God's grace is the only reason we can be justified. But his general understanding of justification is flawed.  It is not a mere legal declaration (imputation) of righteousness, but an actual transformation from our fallen state to a state of righteousness by God's grace acting on and in us (infusion).  When God says something, it comes to be. Such is the power of His word.  Way back at the beginning He said "Let there be light". And there was light. Now to us, when we accept His gift, He says "You are righteous".  We don't just receive the descriptor "righteous", but we become righteous. And this not achieved by our own power or strength of will (which is utterly inadequate to free us from our fallen state) but by the grace of God bestowed freely upon us when we accept Jesus as our savior and get baptized. (There's more on baptism and the other sacraments in another blog entry.)

The links below provide more info.


This article summarizes Grace and Justification and Sanctification:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp

Is Justification On-Going?
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109chap.asp

Justification
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea1.asp

This article goes into more detail on justification:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a134.htm

Biblical Catholic teaching:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a126.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

Church Fathers on Infused Righteousness:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infused.htm

---

Mr Bennett states "In the Roman teaching, no assurance of salvation is ever given, even to the most devout."

He is wrong. Any Catholic can be assured in himself whether or not he is bound for Heaven if he died at the present time. I know I am bound for Heaven at this time. To lose the gift of justification one must reject it through mortal sin and not repent of it before death. Mortal sins are significant, to say the least. (Refer to http://www.saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html). I can know that I have no mortal sins on my conscience and hence I am assured of my salvation at this point in time.  However, Scripture and Tradition teach that we can lose our salvation (forfeit our inheritance).  We always have free will.  If I choose to sin grievously in the future, I will evict the Holy Spirit from myself and lose my salvation. I presently feel confident, due to my relationship with Jesus, that I will not commit mortal sin again, yet I know I am still a flawed human and am always aware that it is a possibility. No Christian can have "infallible certitude" of their future behavior. Paul recognized this fact (for example, 1 Cor 9:27,  Philippians 2:12). Jesus also spoke of it (ie Luke 8:13).

But Mr Bennett might be intending to say that the Church cannot say inerrantly that I will go to heaven when I die.  That is true in the sense that no person can truly know the heart of someone else, so they can't say for a 100% certainty who is going to heaven or to hell. They can only say "as long as you die in the friendship of Christ you will go to heaven".  Mr Bennett's statement here is actually true in relation to his own faith system as well.  He cannot say with 100% assurance if any fellow Christian is bound for heaven. This is because he cannot know their heart. He cannot know if they truly have accepted Jesus as their savior.  He can only assure them that if they die in the friendship of Christ they will go to heaven.


Assurance of Salvation?:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

Once Saved Always Saved?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/once_saved_always_saved.htm
http://www.catscans.com/catholicsite/saved.htm

Church Fathers on the issue:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/mortal.htm

---

Paragraph titled "Starting Point":  Mr Bennett is right in his view of the "moral condition
of the individual" before conversion. And that is what Catholicism teaches.  The "proclamation of Rome" he quotes is also correct because we humans have the gift to realize we are lost and we have the free will and God gives us the grace to choose to accept the gift of salvation. In our choosing to reject or accept that gift "we ourselves decide our own destiny in the sight of God." (But even though we take the choice, we realize that without God's grace we can't even have that option.) Mr Bennett is interpreting this to mean we are redeeming ourselves. He is wrong in that interpretation. 

Likewise, the next Vatican II quote. These quotes are to be interpreted in the context of the man cooperating with God's grace (freely given and unearned), not man outside of God's grace doing these things. 

Here is "Gaudium et Spes" from which Mr Bennett quotes:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html


Mr Bennett states "If one is ever to understand the good news of the gospel, one must begin Biblically with the bad news that of himself man cannot secure his own destiny before the All Holy God because he is spiritually dead in trespasses and sins."  He is 100% correct in this statement. This is what the Catholic Church teaches.  In saying that the Catholic Church teaches man can accomplish his own salvation, Mr Bennett is misinterpreting or presenting out of context Catholic statements.

Check out the Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter I... This is essentially what Mr Bennett stated. This says we are unable to save ourselves but we have the free will to accept God's gift of salvation:

"The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and beat down, was by no means extinguished in them. "


Here is the entire Sixth session of the Council of Trent:
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

---

Next, Mr Bennett quotes the Catechism paragraphs 824, 982, 983 and 1129. These emphasize the role and significance of the Church and the overarching purpose of the sacramental system instituted by Christ.  Because Mr. Bennett doesn't believe that Christ founded a Church which has a visible organized aspect and a sacramental aspect, he naturally won't accept the idea that God's grace comes to us through the Catholic Church and her sacraments.  But these paragraphs are perfectly in line with the idea that Christ founded a Church which features a corporate body (in addition to spiritual association) to spread and protect His truths and a sacramental system to dispense His Grace for the spiritual birth and growth of humans.  Incidentally, the sacraments are not the exclusive, only way to receive God's grace... for example, He can give us (actual) grace(s) through our prayers. And he gives every unsaved person enough (actual) grace to accept His gift of salvation. (It's just that not everyone accepts and cooperates with that grace.)

The significance of Sacramental grace is that it is a sure sign that He is blessing us with his grace (when we receive the sacrament in faith. Otherwise, it's ineffective and actually a sin in itself to receive a sacrament without faith).

Mr Bennett berates the Catholic Church for chastising people who believe in "Faith Alone".   But our faith requires works to perfect it. If we have faith but not works, our faith will stagnate and wither and die. Then we lose our justification. Our works offered up in union with Christ's One Perfect Work helps us grow spiritually.  On the other hand, our works offered up separate from Christ's One Perfect Work, are ineffectual and perhaps offensive to God.


The Faith Alone vs Faith + Works argument is presented in these links:

Faith versus Works - Justification by faith alone:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/faith_vs_works.htm

A Hypothetical Dialog:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp

Church Fathers on Faith & Works:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/justice.htm

Salutary works require grace:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/salutary.htm

---

Next, Mr Bennett misrepresents what the Catholic Church teaches concerning Grace. I'll restate part of my blog entry "8 Matters of the Faith"...

God's Grace alone is the reason for our salvation. But that is in the sense that without God's grace nothing else matters and we can't come to salvation without His grace.  Ultimately, grace is the reason we are justified. While we are justified and adopted as heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven by His grace, it is our own, free will that we accept and remain in that state. We can choose to not accept it, or after accepting it, to give the gift back (by sinning gravely). God made us without consulting our will, but He will not save us against our will [I think Augustine said that]. But He always makes available to us the grace needed to become and remain His children. We only have to accept and cooperate with that grace (or those graces).

There are actually two distinctions of grace - Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace (see
http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp). Sanctifying grace provides the state of sonship in God (justification). Actual grace is a help to act (in doing God's will) to grow spiritually. Apparently, non-Catholics generally only think of grace in the sense of Sanctifying grace.

Paragraph 2021 of the Catechism describes actual grace, not sanctifying grace, and so is not erroneous as Mr Bennett implies it is.

Catholic Encyclopedia on Sanctifying Grace...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

And Actual Grace...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm

---

Where Mr Bennett discusses "Associate Partnership", he seems to think the Church teaches that we humans have some substantial contribution to our own salvation. He is wrong. (See Council of Trent link above.) 

Our free will choice determines our final destiny... either we allow God's gracious gift of the Cross and Resurrection to save us from Hell, or we reject that Gift and end up eternally separated from God. But while we have the choice, we in no way have any power to save ourselves outside of God's Grace.  God does all the work. 

But we do have this "Associate Partnership" to the extent that we must DO something with our faith, and the gifts He gives us, in order to grow in His Spirit.  We are willing accomplices in our own salvation, even if God is the real perpetrator of the action.  (But He will not force us to be accomplices.)  See the part above on the Faith + Works references.

---

In the section titled 'The Dying and “Cooperation In Grace”' Mr Bennett denies that suffering can be beneficial to our sanctification.  This concept he rejects is called 'Redemptive Suffering' and is quite Biblical.  As Peter says, each of us Christians is a priest in this everlasting Kingdom. (Though not all of us in the pastoral sense). The purpose of any priest is to offer sacrifice. Our sufferings can be offered up as a form of sacrifice in union with Christ's once-for-all-time-and-place sacrifice.  In that way, it is a sacrifice pleasing to God and beneficial for our sanctification.  However, a sacrifice or our greatest deeds offered up separate from Christ is like unto menstrual rags in the eyes of God Almighty, and can't to diddly for us.

Redemptive Suffering: "Offering it Up":
http://www.fisheaters.com/offeringitup.html

Scriptural references thereto:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/suffering.html

Why are Catholics so into suffering? Isn't Jesus about healing?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_catholics_love_suffering.htm

---

His "Second Plank" discussion: Since Mr Bennett denies the sacramental aspect of the Church and the idea that justification can be lost, he naturally denies the Church has the power to forgive sins in God's name and thus re-justify a person.  Contrary to his opinion, the sacrament of Reconciliation (or Confession, or Penance) restores a repentant sinner to the family of God, which is to say restores justification lost through mortal sin. (Or, in the case of only venial sins, imparts actual grace for the growth of the Christian.)

The Sacrament of Penance:
http://www.fisheaters.com/penance.html

Mr Bennett's interpretation of John 20:19,22-23 to merely mean to preach forgiveness as having already been accomplished, and not to mean for empowerment of the apostles to forgive sins in His Name, is wrong.  See The Sacrament of Penance:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm



Mr Bennett quotes Dollinger as "one of the most respected Roman Catholic historians".   Actually, while his early work was respected, he changed his views on some Catholic doctrines later in life and was finally excommunicated, in 1871, partly due to his views set forth in "Janus, the Pope and the Council".  Here is his biography: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05094a.htm  and here is the document: http://www.archive.org/stream/popecouncil00dl/popecouncil00dl_djvu.txt


He was, at that point, respected not by Catholics but by Protestants.

Here is Scriptural and Patristic evidence contradicting Mr Bennett and Mr Dollinger:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.html


Why Have Priests?
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/priests_forgive_sins_call_no_man_father.htm



---

Under heading "Rome's Claim to Interchange-Justification ".

This is section is basically about the idea of the Merits of Jesus being spread about to those in need of it, and how that is brought about.

God gives us grace which was earned not by us but by Jesus on the Cross.  The Catholic, Biblical concept of the Communion of Saints describes how the grace(s) and merit(s) of Jesus on the Cross are applied to us sinners who can't cleanse ourselves of our sins.  The Catholic Church does not teach that anyone's own virtue can help us get saved.  What the Church teaches is that a Christian who prays for himself or another can acquire an increase in the grace God gives himself or the other.  Also, a Christian who offers up sufferings and sacrifices in union with the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross (which can then be considered forms of prayer), can increase the grace God gives someone.  It's always about getting God to help more. It's never about a Christian trying to impute their own, Mary's or other Saint's inherent righteousness (of which there is none) to someone else.

Scripture says "the prayers of a righteous man avails much".  Who (besides God) is more righteous than a person in Heaven???????  No one on earth. That is why we seek the intercession of the saints in Heaven, besides from our fellow saints on earth.

Scripture and Patristic references:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints.html

Catholic Encyclopedia on this concept:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm

And another treatment:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/saints.htm

---
Conclusion

Mr Bennett states "Scripture  repeatedly  states   that  our  works  profit  nothing  towards  our  justification."  He is correct. The catholic Church teaches this. Refer to the paragraphs above.  But once we are justified, what then? Sit back, wait til the rapture? No, our initial justification is just the beginning, not end of our journey.  We must go on from there to grow ever closer to our Father in Heaven, until we die.  If we don't, and we backslide, we can lose the gift of justification. But it is by His grace that we can remain in and grow in His Spirit.

Mr Bennett also says " Intercession of saints departed, purgatory, sacraments, obviously
contravene the total sufficiency of finished work of the Lord,".  He is wrong.   These things are not in lieu of the finished work of the Lord, but, instead are the modes of application of that one, sufficient, finished work of the Lord.  They do not pretend to supplant that one and only worthy sacrifice.  They manifest and apply the effects of that meritorious work of God.

Also he says "In   practice  Rome's   attempted   “process”   fusion   of  man’s  merit  with  God’s and its continuing rituals nullify and make void the very grace of God. "
Again, the "communion of saints" and the sacramental system do not supplant or nullify God's grace. They manifest  God's grace in a very real fashion.  With the coming of the New Covenant God did not abolish ritualism and sacrifice, even though such things as bloody animal sacrifices and the legalistic rules were made obsolete.  He fulfilled and transformed and perfected the Old Covenant rituals and sacrifices through the One True Perfect Sacrifice, the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, on the Altar of the Cross.  As His family He empowers us to participate in that one sacrifice (by His power and grace and sacraments) and the grace that comes from that one sacrifice is provided to us through the rituals of the New Covenant Christ gave to us (the Sacraments) and through the prayers of our brothers and sisters in God's family (on earth and in heaven).

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

The Papal Claim to Have the Keys of the Apostle Peter

Berean Beacon on The Papal Claim to Have the Keys of the Apostle Peter:
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/01_On_Catholicism/The_Claim_and_Boast_to_have_the_Keys_of_the_Apostle_Peter.pdf

---

"The Petrine primacy of the Pope is an historic holdover from the false Decretals of Con-
stantine and Isidore."

For reference here are links describing the documents Mr Bennett mentions (for more details follow the references of these articles):

The False Decretals of Isidore:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm

Donation of Constantine:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

So, Mr Bennett believes the papacy began with Constantine. But that is simply not true.

Here's a refutation of this argument:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/ConstantinePaganChristian.htm

Another:
http://seanhyland.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/why-do-some-anti-catholic-groups-say-that-constantine-was-the-first-pope-and-that-he-founded-the-catholic-church-at-the-council-of-nicaea-in-325-ad/

Another:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/did_constantine_invent_catholicism.htm
---

Presupposition 1: The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his
Church, i.e. foundation of His Church.

Yes, Peter was the "rock" on whom Christ built His Church. The foundation of the Church is the Apostles with Christ as the cornerstone. Peter is the prime Apostle. Christ handed Peter the Keys of the Kingdom. Their meaning is not so limited as Mr Bennett believes. Primarily, it means Peter was given the authority to speak and command in the name of the king (Isa 22:20,...) (Mr Bennett seems to be eschewing the Old Testament when he interprets Matthew.) The King is Jesus, the heir of David, and is presently enthroned in Heaven. Therefore, Peter wielded the power to rule in Jesus' place (as His vicar) after He ascended to heaven.  The keys also represent dynastic succession.  In the Davidic dynasty (Jesus is heir to the Davidic throne) the office of the king's vicar was always refilled when vacated. Therefore, Peter's office was filled upon his departure. Hence we have a succession of his office to this day.

This event was a covenant moment. God often changes the name of a man with whom He makes a covenant and God provides a promise in that covenant. Here, Jesus changes Simon's name and tells Simon He (Jesus) will build His Church upon him (as leader) and the "gates of hell" will not prevail against it. This covenant promise was fulfilled after Jesus' Ascension when Peter and the Apostles commenced to spread the Gospel and grow the Kingdom.

It's not just Catholics who take this "Catholic" view. This article quotes numerous non-Catholic scholars who promote it: "St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome in the Early Church"  http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

Other references:

Peter in Patristic Thought:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

Scott Hahn speaks on Scriptural basis:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html

Catholic Encyclopedia "St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles":
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

The Primacy of Peter:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: James White's Objections Answered :
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num41.htm

Little Rock Big Rock:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

---

Presupposition 2: That Peter went to Rome and was the first bishop in Rome

Indeed he did. And Scripture implies Peter was in Rome...

1 Peter 5:12-13
    "I write you this briefly through Silvanus ... The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son. "

Babylon here is a codeword for Rome... "the chosen one" refers to the church there, so Peter must have been writing from there...


And there is a plethora of extra-Scriptural evidence supporting it, as described by the
following links.

Was Peter in Rome?:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

Peter's Presence in Rome:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rome.htm

Bishop of Rome:
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap050400.htm

Did Peter die in Rome?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/did_peter_die_in_rome.htm

---

Presupposition 3: That Peter’s successors are the bishops of Rome under the primacy of
the Pope

First of all, "Apostolic Succession" does not mean transmission of the all the attributes of the Christ-appointed office of the the original Apostles.  There is only one set of divinely
inspired Apostles and the visible, heirarchical aspect of the church was built on them. Those Apostles were inspired but their successors are not. But the teaching and sheparding authority aspects of the Apostolic office ("bishopric" as the KJV puts it) are indeed handed down to men in order to lead subsequent generations of Christians to the fullness of the Gospel. Peter's office as leader of the Apostles and the king's prime minister was refilled after he vacated it. The popes are his successors and possess the authority of the king's prime minister, even if they are not inspired as was the original occupant of the office.

Mr Bennett asserts "In Scripture there is no mention of successors to Peter or the Apostles."

He is wrong concerning the Apostles. For example, (Acts 1:15-26) the assignment of Matthias to fill the office of Judas at the Council of Jerusalem. The concept of successor-ship of the offices of the Apostles (ministers to the King, particularly the prime minister to the King) is implicit in Scripture. When Scripture is interpreted in context, particularly in the context of the dynastic character of the Davidic kingdom, one can see plainly that the Apostolic office was meant to be filled whenever vacated, and he is called a bishop (Acts 1:20 - "his bishopric let another take"). This succession extends to expanding the Kingdom also. As churches (aka congregations of the One Church, or dioceses in modern parlance) are started in various places a new bishop is ordained to lead that church and the number of bishops of the Church increases with the expansion of the kingdom.


Apostolic (and Papal) Succession:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

Apostolic Authority and Succession:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm

The Church Fathers on Peter's Successors:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp


---

Concluding Paragraphs

"The concept of the bishop of Rome as a successor of Peter was not seriously held until the fourth century. "

Mr Bennett is just plain wrong. Refer to the links referenced under Presupposition 3.

"Scriptures proclaim that the one supreme sovereign head of the Church is the all holy,
unchangeable, all-powerful, all knowing, all wise Lord Jesus Christ."

Mr Bennett is 100% correct in that statement. And he continues:

"The Roman Catholic Church proclaims that the reigning Pontiff, “as pastor of the  entire
Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”"

This is a perfectly reasonable and Scriptural thing, because Christ assigned the first pope, delegating His authority to Peter, and provided a means of maintaining through time that visible Universal Shepard to lead people to Christ.  As Peter had plenary authority after Christ ascended to heaven, so Peter's successors have that same authority to shepard and teach and guard God's family on Earth.

Refer to Scott Hahn on the papacy:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html


---

More references:


"The Primacy of Peter, the Papacy and Apostolic Succession":
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a87.htm


"Apostolicity":
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm

Monday, November 15, 2010

8 Matters of the Faith

Berean Beacon  "Thy Word is Truth":
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/02_Good_News_for_Catholics/Thy_Word_Is_Truth.pdf


This is a document summarizing Catholic Catechism "contradictions" with Scripture. There are eight subjects. It is meant to be printed and handed out to Catholics to show them important issues and the Catholic Church's "false" teachings on them. Mr Bennett feels, I suppose, these are eight of the most significant "errors" of Catholicism. Many of his other documents bring up these issues and so by addressing these issues here I'll be providing refutation of many of the other documents on the Berean Beacon web site.

I'll demonstrate where the Berean Beacon is wrong in either Scriptural interpretation or in presenting his selective quotations of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

---

Topic: The Basis of Truth

This topic concerns "the Bible Alone" (Sola Scriptura) concept versus Scripture along with Tradition and Church Leadership. This is covered in my blog entry "Authentication of Scripture & the Significance of Tradition". 


---

Topic: Salvation by Grace Alone

Mr Bennett is right. God's Grace alone is the reason for our salvation. But that is in the sense that without God's grace nothing else matters and we can't come to salvation without His grace.  Ultimately, grace is the reason we are justified. While we are justified and adopted as heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven by His grace, it is our own, free will that we accept and remain in that state. We can choose to not accept it, or after accepting it, to give the gift back (by sinning gravely). God made us without consulting our will, but He will not save us against our will [I think Augustine said that]. But He always makes available to us the grace needed to become and remain His children. We only have to accept and cooperate with that grace (or those graces).

There are actually two distinctions of grace - Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace (see
http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp). Sanctifying grace provides the state of sonship in God (justification). Actual grace is a help to act (in doing God's will) to grow spiritually. Apparently, non-Catholics generally only think of grace in the sense of Sanctifying grace.

Mr Bennett cites three quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church :

Paragraph 2021: this one describes actual grace, not sanctifying grace, and so is not erroneous as Mr Bennett implies it is.

Paragraph 1129: 'Sacramental grace'... the Sacraments are required because they were instituted by Christ Himself... baptism imparts sanctifying grace ("the washing of regeneration"), and is the sign of the new covenant; confirmation imparts actual grace to become more mature spiritually; the holy Eucharist imparts actual grace; confession/reconciliation imparts sanctifying grace when mortal sins are forgiven, which returns a sinner to the family (re-justifies him). But it must be remembered: faith comes first...sacraments received without true faith are hollow, useless rituals and it is a sin in itself to do do.  (And if a repentant sinner dies without actually receiving a particular sacrament, they are ok because God sees the heart and knows he wanted to (or would, if he understood the purpose and the power of the sacraments.))

paragraph 1493: the sacramental system as instituted by Christ includes a means for reuniting repentant sinners with the family of God.  The sacrament of Reconciliation is the means by which justification is restored, in the case of mortal sin. In the case of non-mortal (venial) sin, actual grace is imparted for the penitant to grow spiritually. We are commanded in Scripture to confess our sins to a priest.  Refer to http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.html.


Catholic Encyclopedia on Sanctifying Grace...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

And Actual Grace...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm

And Sacraments...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

Scripture references to Justification and Salvation...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/justification.html
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html

Scripture references to the sacraments, menu on the left...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

the Sacraments...
http://www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp

---


Topic: Faith is God-Given and Sustained

Faith is a gift indeed, a gift which originates from God, but it must be accepted and exercised to do any good.

"Faith is the Gift of God and comes by the Word of God"... which comes to the world through the church He established ("Mother Church"), not merely by paper and ink. A book alone can't go find people to evangelize. Christ founded the Church of the New Covenant to bring His full gospel to the entire world.

(Scott Hahn's lectures on salvation history give an understanding of the origin and purpose and power of the Church...
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/Mod2.html)

Catechism Paragraph 168, 169, 181...
These paragraphs are in perfect accord with Scripture when one considers that Christ began His Church foundation (gathering the Apostles) then preached the Gospel. The Church came first and then the Word was spread by that Church. The Church co-creates children of God (by being the delivery mechanism of the Gospel), and is the "Bride of Christ", hence can be called "Mother" by us Christians.  It's understandable that non-Catholics reject this concept because they already reject the concept of an organized heirarchical body being the visible aspect of the Church.

Mr Bennett doesn't show these paragraphs in his tract:

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained
justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"43

162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: "Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith."44 To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;45 it must be "working through charity [love]," abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.46

Here's more from the catechism on faith...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm#I


---


Topic: Christ's Sufficient Finished Sacrifice

Mr Bennett is saying here that the Catholic Church does not teach that "Christ’s Sacrifice was His alone and once offered".  He is wrong. The proper context will show the Catechism quotes to be accurate and Scriptural.

The Catholic Church does teach that "Christ’s Sacrifice was His alone and once offered".
His crucifixion happened once in this space-time continuum and ONLY HIS sacrifice paid the price for original sin and all of our personal sins.  Every sin in the universe is paid for... in principle. In a past event "He had by Himself purged our sins" in principle, but not yet in application in every case. As long as this world exists payment will continue to be applied on a case-by-case basis every time a sinner asks forgiveness contritely and sincerely.

Mr Bennett cites the Catechism to show apparent conflict with Scripture:

Paragraph 1367...
In the same sense that God sees everything from all times and places in this universe at "once" (because He made it and is not constrained within it), His sacrifice (the victim being God Incarnate) is available at every point in space-time.  The Mass is the renewal event of the New Covenant. This renewal event was begun with the Last Supper, when Christ instituted the New Covenant memorial feast. This memorial feast is the (New Covenant) fulfillment, transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant Passover feast. In the accounts of the Last Supper you will not find a baby sheep (which was required by the Law).  This is because Jesus is the Lamb of God and gave Himself to be the sacrificial Passover Lamb. In the Old Covenant Passover feast, the family was required to eat the lamb. Just so, in the New Covenant Passover feast. Jesus gives His flesh and blood to us, in an unbloody manner in the appearance of bread and wine, to eat and drink in order to reap the blessings of obedience to God. This is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which manifests, makes present in the here and now, that sacrificial lamb, Jesus Christ, in that once-for-all-time-and-place sacrifice of the Cross.

Paragraph 1368...
The Church's teaching here is one of a certain context.  It is not implying "the visible
corporate organization that is the Catholic Church, with all her canon laws and ritualism, is
sacrificed". Instead, in a certain context, the Church is the body of Christ. Therefore, if
Christ is sacrificed, the Church is sacrificed  (in that sense).

Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia on this idea...
[
This truth, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, all its members being guided and directed by Christ the head, is set forth by St. Paul in various passages, more especially in Ephesians 4:4-13 (cf. John 15:5-8). The doctrine may be summarized as follows:
    * The members of the Church are bound together by a supernatural life communicated to them by Christ through the sacraments (John 15:5). Christ is the centre and source of life to Whom all are united, and Who endows each one with gifts fitting him for his position in the body (John 15:7-12). These graces, through which each is equipped for his work, form it into an organized whole, whose parts are knit together as though by a system of ligaments and joints (John 15:16; Colossians 2:19).
    * Through them, too, the Church has its growth and increase, growing in extension as it
spreads through the world, and intensively as the individual Christian develops in himself the likeness of Christ (John 15:13-15).
    * In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ
(Ephesians 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as "Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:12).
    * This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Through this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized; "We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17).
]

For more info...

Summary of Scripture related to the eucharist...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

Scott Hahn on the Eucharist...
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc3.htm

Eucharist, Holy Meal...
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html

The application of Christ's sacrifice...
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pg.html

---

Topic: God, the only All Holy One

Mr. Bennett is mis-interpreting the Catechism paragraph 2030. It is not saying Mary is the source of holiness.

God is the source of all holiness. No one else. But He does give such abundant grace to some individuals who accept and cooperate with it that that person is then considered holy. But Catholicism does not teach that they are holy of their own power. Mary lived a holy life by virtue of God's grace in her. Now she is in Heaven with God. She is entirely holy indeed. She is the "example of holiness" referred to in the Catechism paragraph 2030.  This paragraph is saying we can see the "source of holiness" (God) operating in the all-holy Virgin Mary, not that Mary herself is the source.

See also "Topic: Communion with the Dead" below.

---

Topic: One Mediator

The Catholic Church does not teach that there is more than one (person-access) way into Heaven.

Mary is considered a "Mediatrix".  But not independantly, or of her own power (of which she has none). Her mediation is based on her relationship with the one true mediator (Jesus) and entirely depends upon the existance of that one true mediator. She mediated in the sense that physically through her the one true mediator, Jesus, came into the world. (In that sense she is also a co-creator of God incarnate, as all parents are co-creators of life.) And she presently mediates in the sense that we can ask her to pray for us.  She does nothing, she can do nothing, separately from God's grace but according to Scripture she is "full of grace". She can mediate for us by petitioning her son for our desires. (Another word for this description of her is "intercessor". We can all intercede for someone else by praying for them.)  Of course, we also ask Jesus directly for our desires.  We just supplement that with asking our fellow Christians to pray for us, which includes Christians in heaven, especially the Mother of God (incarnate).

Here's a Bible-study showing her significance in God's salvation plan... 
 "Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God":
http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online/holy_queen_the_mother_of_god_in_the_word_of_god

See also "Topic: Communion with the Dead" below.

---

Topic: Idolatry

This subject I discussed in the blog entry "Berean Beacon on "Idolatry in the Church"".

---

Topic: Communion with the Dead

Mr Bennett's Scripture quotes refer to evil spirits whereas the Catechism is referring to
Christians in Heaven.  Scripture supports Communion with the Dead [in Christ].

In praying to the souls in heaven we are only asking them to pray for us, not seeking knowledge or favors of their own power (which would amount to worshipping them).
Deut 18:10-11 refers to the really dead... the evil spirits... for divining information or
favors. Likewise Leviticus 20:6-7.

What is prayer? Usually, the non-Catholic considers prayer in and of itself to be a form of worship or adoration. Actually, there are different kinds of prayer such as petitional prayer ("God, please heal my mother"), worshiping prayer ("Father in Heaven, you are the source of all goodness"), contemplative prayer (we open our mind and soul to the Spirit as we contemplate some mystery of God or Scripture).

When we pray to someone in heaven, we are using petitional prayer, asking them to pray for us. We are not seeking favors of their own power (they have none their own) or trying to glean information from a supernatural source (as proscribed in the OT, ie King Saul and the sorceress). It is no different than when I ask a fellow Christian here on Earth to pray for me. There are some instances where someone might pray to the saints in heaven to the exclusion of praying to and worshiping God and this is indeed wrong and they should quit
praying to the saints entirely until they get their spiritual priorities back in order.

BTW, Catholics are not commanded to pray to the saints or Mary under pain of damnation. It is not a "requirement" or dogmatic practice. Just a highly beneficial action. "The Communion of Saints" is dogma, however, and certain aspects of Mary are dogmatic and all Catholics are required to believe those things, so I guess we are required to honor her and the saints to that extent. (And it is a pleasure to do so when we understand the whole matter.)

Mary is a particular favorite for us earth-bound Christians to pray to because she is the mother of Jesus. She was the first Christian in history. We honor (not worship/adore)
her as Jesus honors his mother. He is pleased when we honor her. We only emulate Jesus when we honor her and we are commanded to emulate Jesus. We ask her to pray for us, we do not worship her. Anyone who prays to Mary and the saints in heaven must be aware to limit it to petitional prayer and perhaps thanking them for cooperating with God's grace and His plan. When we honor them we only honor God's work, not their own. But we must never worship (adore) them, of course. We must keep them in perspective, that they are our fellow creatures of God, not divine beings.

Mary, being a unique person of history and due to her willing role, has a number of descriptive titles. These titles do not amount to worship. They do honor her, though. They acknowledge the work of God in salvation history and her cooperation with His grace and His plan. These titles are Scriptural, even if not explicitly so.

Mother of God: She is not the mother of God (the Father) or God (the Holy Spirit). But by virtue of conceiving, gestating and birthing God incarnate (God the Son) she is the mother of God.

Queen of Heaven: In the Davidic dynastic tradition (as with most ancient near-eastern dynasties) the queen of the kingdom was the king's mother, one reason being kings had multiple wives. Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is the presently and forevermore enthroned King of Heaven. Therefore she is the Queen of Heaven. This doesn't mean that we attribute to her divine power or authority, just that she is honored by God for her cooperation with His grace and His salvation plan.

Mother of all Christians: In different senses she is mother, daughter, sister to Jesus. Mother by birthing Him, daughter because she is an adopted child of God and Jesus is God, sister in that she is a child of God and Jesus is the (only begotten) son of God. To us Christians she is both mother and sister. Sister in that she is a fellow adopted sibling and mother in that since she is the mother of God (the son) and we are adoptive children of God (hence Jesus is our brother in that sense) she is then our adoptive mother. Her motherhood to us was stated by Jesus Himself, from the cross. Mary and John were with Him. He said to her "behold, your son" and to him "behold, your mother". John was referred to as the one He loved. Jesus loves all of His disciples, so in this scene John represents all Christians. Of course, an additional meaning of this scene is Jesus leaving His mother in the care of His cousin, since He would be gone soon. These interpretations aren't contradictory but merely two levels of meaning.

Co-Redemptrix: This title is the most offensive to those who mis-understand all this Mary-honoring. I agree, on the surface this seems to be elevating Mary to Godhood. But in truth the proper context renders this title accurately descriptive. Parents are co-creators with God of human life. This doesn't mean parents have divine powers, but that they participated with God in the creation of a human being. Their biological selves contributed the physical stuff while God infused a soul into the new person. In similar context, Mary is Co-Redemptrix. Not that she has divine powers of her own or that we should worship her, but she willingly cooperated with God and provided the womb and half the chromosomes for God Incarnate, the Redeemer, to come into the world. It is only in that context that she helped redeem us and is considered Co-Redemptrix and we merely honor her with those titles, not worship her.

Mediatrix of All Graces: Firstly, Jesus, no one else, is the Source of All Graces. Mary mediated in that she was the human mother who provided the womb for the Incarnation to happen, bringing all the graces from God into the world. This title does not try to imply Mary has divine power of her own, just that we can ask her to ask her son to give us graces.

Ark of the (New) Covenant: The Ark of the (Mosaic) Covenant contained three things: the Word of God (10 Commandments), a jar of food (manna) and the rod of Aaron (representing priesthood). The Ark of the (New) Covenant contained the same three things all in one person: The Word of God (incarnate), food that is His Body, a priest (Christ is the High Priest). Therefore, Mary herself is the Ark of the New Covenant.  The Ark of the Covenant was a holy thing by virtue of its contents. Just so, Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.

Born without Sin ("The Immaculate Conception"): The old Ark of the Covenant was a holy thing by virtue of it's holy contents. Accordingly, the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary, is considered to be born free of the stain of Original Sin by virtue of being the container of the New Covenant Word, Food and Priest. She was retroactively saved from sin because God foresaw her "Yes" to Him. The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the faith.

These next items are not titles but descriptions to which non-Catholics object.

Perpetual Virgin: You might think "A wife who never had sex with her husband??? Impossible!!" But remember, the Holy Family was no ordinary family and is unique in history.  It actually wasn't that rare of a thing in that time and place and religion for a married couple to abstain from sexual intercourse.  A holy man of Judaism might want to remain "pure" in that respect.  It is logically plausible, that Joseph and Mary had a chaste marriage, and not contra-scriptural.  Since Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, Joseph would have had the respect due to such a Holy thing.

Assumed into Heaven Bodily: Non-Catholics object to this on the basis that she was just like any other creature of God, like you and me, just blessed a little more than us. However, she is indeed a special creature. The most special creature ever made, in fact. It's easy to accept this idea, that Jesus brought her up to heaven bodily when her time on earth was done. After all, God assumed a few other righteous creatures in OT times, why not His favorite creature of all? Mary's Assumption is a dogma of the faith. (When you read Revelation you find  that the ark of the Old Covenant is in Heaven, likewise the ark of the New Covenant.)

Here are links showing the Scriptural and historical support of these things...

Catholic Encyclopedia on the Communion of Saints...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm

Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the Word of God (an online Bible study):
http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online/holy_queen_the_mother_of_god_in_the_word_of_god

Scott Hahn on Mary in Scripture...
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/m.html
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html

And on saints in Heaven...
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/sts.html

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Authentication of Scripture & the Significance of Tradition

Berean Beacon's article on Sola Scriptura...
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/02_Good_News_for_Catholics/Sola_Scriptura_early_church.pdf

( And for more Pro-Sola-Scriptura, here's a chapter from a book by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr...
http://www.mbrem123.com/bible/sufficn.php )


Here's my take on the subject (just a jumble of thoughts, not a formal essay...):



---
Some non-Catholics feel that the Catholic Church and its Tradition get in the way of a
relationship with God and with understanding Scripture. Conversly, Tradition does not inhibit us or render Scripture redundant or superfluous.  Because Scripture is the very words of our Father (translated), it is a personal letter written to each of us individually as well as to all of us collectively. Scripture is our Daddy's very own writing. However, we must get help understanding it sometimes.

Here's an analogy:
A 19 year old boy's father died when the boy was just a toddler. The father, having a terminal illness, had written a long letter for his child to have and to read when he was old enough. The boy cherished the letter as he grew up, it being Dad's own writing written especially for the boy. (This fact he learned from his mother.)  Some things in the letter were not fully understandable to the boy, so he would ask his mom about it. Mom, having known Dad personally and intimately could easily elucidate for the boy. Her presence and her knowledge of Dad did not render Dad's letter superfluous, nor did Mom get in the way between the boy and his father's message, but actually enhanced the father-son relationship (as it were) and gave it the fullest meaning possible for the boy.

---

Some Christians have great faith that the Bible alone is the sole medium of transmission of everything God wants us to know concerning our life in Him. Catholics believe that His Word is not necessarily bound up in a volume of inspired writings. While the written Word is holy and true, it was never meant to be the primary means of spreading the teachings of Jesus. He established the Church of the New Covenant (in visible, heirarchical form as well as spiritual association) in order to lead people to all truth. 

Imagine if all the Bibles in the world disappeared... the full Gospel would still get to the world because Jesus' Church possesses it and would preach it. However, if the evangelizing/teaching Church disappeared from the earth and the Bible was still here, folks could read it but there'd likely be as many interpretations as there are people. Without the teaching authority of Jesus' Church, the Bible is limited (due to the interpretational limitations or prejudices of the reader) in it's capability to transmit the full Gospel faithfully. Look at the real world... since the popularization of "The Bible Alone" concept, in the 1500's, Christianity has divided into thousands of sects, each claiming to have the Spirit-lead correct interpretation, yet many having diametrically opposing interpretations. They can all be wrong, but they cannot all be right!

---

While the fact that the Bible is the inspired written Word of God is independant of people's opinion of it, we accept the fact of its inspiration because of an extra-scriptural authority that tells us so: Tradition. Not a human tradition but Apostolic (or Sacred) Tradition. God has chosen not to give everyone a personal revelation. He left behind  humans to preach His Word. The Word of God is composed of all the divine truths that the Apostles taught. Upon the death of the last Apostle, the Gospel had been completely revealed. (Since then there have been no new public revelations from God.) This is the "deposit of faith" which is handed down to us from the Apostles by the legitimate teaching authority of the Church built on the foundation of those selfsame Apostles.

---

Tradition tells us, and we accept it, that the NT writings are authored by God and Paul, or God and Peter, or God and Matthew, etc.

---

"Bible Christians" and other non-Catholic (Protestant) Christians generally downplay or despise "tradition", especially as it relates to Scripture. Concerning man-originating tradition, the Catholic can agree. But there is something called "Sacred" or "Apostolic" tradition (which the Catholic would refer to concisely as "Tradition", capital T) which the Catholic sees as all the Christic/Apostolic teachings which didn't come to be explicitly part of the canon of Scripture (ie due to the Apostle never writing it out) but is nonetheless part of what the Apostles preached and is divine Truth.

---

Q: How come self-proclaimed "Bible Christians" don't use the whole Bible? A: Because the tradition that guides them tells them the "extra" seven books don't belong in the canon of Scripture. The tradition Catholics follow tells Catholics those seven books do belong.

---

Tradition and the canon of Scripture are tightly related. New Testament Scripture was Tradition (oral) before it was written down, thus becoming part of the written word of God.

---

God's Word is not limited to texts found in the Bible...
The Word also became flesh. The Spirit of the Word indwels the Apostolic Tradition as well as Scripture. Just as the Spirit ensured (through the Church He established) the Bible (the written Word) is handed down through time and space with necessary accuracy, so teachings of Tradition (the oral Word) are handed down to us with the same fidelity.

---

The Bible explicitly or implicitly describes the divine truths the Apostles taught. Some doctrines don't spring forth blatantly from Scripture (such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary), but Sacred Tradition, the non-written Word of God, describes such doctrines and they are logically inferrable from Scripture. While the Apostles may not have written down these things, their successors have. The words the successors wrote are not considered inspired, but what they learned from the Apostles can be considered infallible.

---

Without Tradition, none of us would have the bible as we know it. Traditional doctrine was a benchmark test of a writing's canon-icity when the Church was looking to close the Canon of Scripture. (Everyone thereafter could then know without doubt what writings  they should consider inspired and what writings to not consider inspired.)  Without Tradition and the teaching authority of the church there would be many many different compilations of texts considered "Scripture", based on people's own private judgements. In the past, some fellows have shunned Tradition and have subtracted or added to what is considered Scripture: Martin Luther is one, another is Joseph Smith.  Without Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church Christ established, neither of these men can be berated for such actions.

---

Today we accept the inspired nature of Scripture firstly because our tradition ingrained it into us (we who were raised Christian were indoctrinated into it, so we are inclined to believe it). What Christian home do you know of where they don't tell their kids the Bible is the inspired word of God? Secondly we believe its inspiration because it does support it's own divine origin, even if it logically cannot authenticate itself.

---

Logically, a document cannot authenticate itself. (For example, I need a notary public to authenticate some of my legal documents, despite my own signature implying their authenticity.) Therefore, the Bible, being a document, logically cannot authenticate itself. Authenticity is confirmed by the teaching authority of the Church Christ founded to promulgate His Word.

(
Even Jesus could not authenticate Himself...

In John 5:31... "If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony cannot be verified. 32 But there is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that the testimony he gives on my behalf is true."

Just so, one cannot glorify oneself, as in John 8:54... "Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is worth nothing; but it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.'"

In John 5:36-39 He describes His authentication... "But I have testimony greater than John's. The works that the Father gave me to accomplish, these works that I perform testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. 37 Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 and you do not have his word remaining in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent. 39 You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf."

So, Jesus was authenticated by His signs (miracles), the Father and the OT Scriptures, not by Himself. (And His authentication is one reason that only Christianity can be the one true religion.)

In this light, Scripture is authenticated not by itself, but by the Church He built on the foundation of the Apostles.
)

---

How the bible-reader interprets Scripture is based on tradition of some kind. Who among us can say that we are uninfluenced in our interpretation of Scripture? That we use Scripture alone to interpret Scripture? Indeed, in order to properly interpret Scripture accurately we NEED (unless God chooses to directly illuminate us) extra-Biblical sources (teachers, pastors, concordances, etc). Scripture alone doesn't give us the full context of itself. But by studying the ancient cultures and languages and societies, etc (necessarily from extra-biblical sources), along with Scripture, we get the proper context in which to interpret Scripture.

---

Some interpretations are based on Apostolic Tradition, other interpretations are influenced by other, newer traditions. The various heresies throughout history were deviations from Apostolic Tradition (and Scripture) and that Tradition, along with Scripture, was used to disprove heresy. Even the very Scriptures we all hold so dear became the Bible as we know it due to Tradition. (Check out AIG's article on the Canon http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/why-sixty-six. Under 'What Made a Book "Scripture"?' are 5 points, some of which ultimately rely on Tradition in order to answer a particular question concerning a given writing. I'm on a tangent here, but the article also propounds that while Jesus and the Apostles did use the Septuagint, the apocryphal writings were not a part of the version they used. That's a new idea to me. Usually non-Catholics just deny they used the Septuagint. Here's a Catholic view on the issue: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.HTM)

---

How can one tell if the tradition of interpretation they follow is what the Apostles taught? Firstly, Pray. Nextly, look for doctrinal longevity and consistency through time and space. Take a hard look at history in general (we need to know the world in which the family and the Word of God have dwelt) and the post-Apostolic Christian writings ("Church Fathers") in particular. Study Scripture, considering the context in terms of language, literary sense, time period, society, and place.

---

I've found in my research that it is the Catholic Tradition which extends back to, and has not changed (though depth of understanding has grown) since, Apostolic times and is throughout the world. (That is why it quickly came to be called the "Universal Church"... it is everywhere and everywhen "One Faith". By the beginning of the 2nd century the term "catholic" was already in common use.) Other traditions are not as old. From the 300's to the 1500's this one, universal, Christian Church considered the same 73 writings to be Scripture. (Slightly different enumeration of the writings was used early on). And that one Christian Church interpreted Scripture in light of the Apostolic Tradition. Then Luther and Calvin and Zwingly decided their own private judgment to be superior to Apostolic Tradition, and eliminated or altered parts of Scripture to suit their own doctrines (notably "sola fide" and "sola scriptura").

---

Sola Scriptura has been practiced by some since the beginning of Christianity... most notably by Arius and Nestorius and long before the "Reformers". Their faith in their own private judgement in interpretation led them astray from sound doctrine, and their preaching of those errors caused other souls to be led astray from Truth. Refer to http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm.

---

With Scripture alone, a person can conclude lots of untrue things through their misinterpretation of it. The heresies of the past arose when individuals departed from the Apostolic Tradition in their Scriptural interpretations.

---

Non-Catholics typically don't realize their debt to the Catholic Church... Besides giving us the Canon of Scripture (definitively, authoritatively listing its contents for us and preserving it through persecution and barbarian invasions and the "dark ages"), it was the Catholic Church who preserved the core doctrines of Christianity through the ages (primarily, the three-person nature of God). Most Christians either don't know or conveniently ignore the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity was preserved, despite significant heretical movements (especially Arianism), only due to the efforts of the Catholic theologians and leadership. The Trinity doctrine is professed by all true Christians, yet few of them realize or give thanks to the Catholic Church for defending and preserving it. Of course, ultimately, the thanks belong to the Holy Spirit who guided the Christian leaders (specifically the pope) in preserving the doctrine. As Christ said, the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church and the Arian Heresy event is one demonstration of that. Arianism very nearly displaced the true doctrine of the Trinity but the pope stood firm (even against a majority of the bishops) by the grace of God.

---

Anti-Catholics today claim the early Christian Church was a "Bible Church" (no Traditions or traditions being followed) and there was no large-scale structured, hierarchical, corporate organization... only a spiritual-associative relationship... That the Catholic Church was a later invention and the papacy began with Constantine installing the first pope. But history contradicts that position...

In the first several centuries of Christianity there arose a number of heretical movements. (summary at http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp) Sometimes clergy, other times laymen led them. Monophysitism, monothelitism, Gnosticism, Docetism, Arianism, Nerstorianism, et al. These movements of flawed doctrine could happen when a guy put his own private interpretation of Scripture as superior to that of the Christian leaders (collectively known as the magisterium & pope) guided by Apostolic Tradition. These heresies were successfully combated ONLY because of the existance of a structured, heirarchical, corporate organization: The One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church, which is to say the Catholic Church. The Christians of the day recognized councils of the bishops and the pope as the authority of the Christian Faith System. No other organization as such was in existance. Without an organization having authority and international jurisdiction such heresies could not be countered... There would be no authority to declare which doctrine is true and which is false. (The New Testament canon didn't exist yet, though there was a general idea of the writings people felt to be inspired... but it wasn't official, so some could use uninspired writings as inspired...)

---

Extract from http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CATHEVID.HTM ...

1. The Visible Church

The idea of a visible church is not meant to exclude
spirituality and place stress only on the organization: but
given spiritual unity, then a visible organization follows as
its embodiment and safeguard.

A common opinion, though necessary, is not sufficient:
Shakespeare lovers are not a visible body: the Shakespeare
Society is. The two further things necessary are:

(a) A central authority.
(b) Demarcation of function among properly constituted officials.

Catholicism has these things and boasts of them:
Protestantism has not and boasts of their absence, insisting
that a common opinion (and this of the vaguest sort) is
sufficient to constitute a church.

The question is, did Christ simply sow ideas, or did He also
establish a society to guard and spread them?


---

More info...


What the Vatican has said... Dei Verbum (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION)...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

The Bible and the Church: Both or Neither
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m1/bbl.html

Summary of Scripture and Church Fathers on the issue...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

Summary of Scripture on Oral Tradition...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

The Two Canons: Scripture and Tradition
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/2CANONS.HTM

On the Task of Interpreting Scripture...
http://209.61.179.205/documents/scripture/On_the_Task.pdf

Sola Scriptura in the early Church
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm

Private Exegesis apart from Tradition and Church
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/private.htm

Apostolic Succession
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm

Where We Got the Bible
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Berean Beacon on "Idolatry in the Church"

Berean Beacon's article:
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/04_Idolatry_and_the_Gospel/Idolatry_in_the_Church.pdf

Graven images... statues... paintings... drawings... to represent God or Jesus amount to
idolatry.  That is Mr Bennett's belief.  Mr Bennett and his co-author interpret Deut 4:14-16 to strictly proscribe any man-made image of God.  I suppose this is the first link in their chain of logic used to condemn that Catholic practice of using images and statues, etc. in the worship of God and in the prayer life of individual Catholics.   But if you read Deuteronomy 4:14-16 in context (read the whole chapter 4 and Chapter 5 also) you will see that it is referring to creating idols in order to worship them as God or a god, as opposed to worshipping God. It does not prohibit representations of God in an absolute sense.

Catholics use objects, sometimes objects which represent God the Father or God the Son or God the Holy Spirit, to enhance their worship of God Almighty.  The object is not the target of prayer and adoration, but a tool to aid the person's focus of heart and mind and
spirit upon God. For us children of God, images do not "confuse the distinction between
God and His created world" because the Spirit within us recognizes Him and gives Him all
glory and honor.

Berean Beacon article states "Our knowledge of Jesus Christ must be formed from the truths in Scripture...". I agree so far. But  I suggest that Berean Beacon's first error in their position on this is in their misinterpretation of Scripture.  Refer to the links below.

It continues "...and not by subjective impressions of artistic interpretation." I suggest that the eye of the beholder is what determines what is represented by any artistic human creation. Obviously, a portrait of Jesus by Norman Rockwell would be interpreted to be Jesus but an impressionist's image of Jesus would not be interpreted as such by most people. So, is it then an "image of God"? To me, two perpendicular intersecting line segments represents Christ. It would then be considered an "image of God".  Likewise with the fish symbol.  (I do give credit to the Berean Beacon, however, for consistency in that they do not have any such or other "symbols of God" on their web site.) 

By this statement the article means images shouldn't be used to convey the Gospel message whereas only Scripture should be.  However, most, if not all, religious images depict an
event or message or person from Scripture. Like Scripture, an image is open to be
interpreted rightly or wrongly by the viewer. The Spirit can guide our interpretation of
images as well as Scripture. Knowledge of Jesus can be enhanced by implementing images to aid one's memory.

Something to remember is that the use of images or statues or relics is not a required
practice  (Excepting, of course, when it comes to the adoration of the eucharistic bread
and wine which appear to be mere bread and wine but are really the body and blood of God incarnate, Jesus Christ).  Any Catholic is at liberty to use them or not. If you already have good mental and spiritual focus and can raise your heart and soul up to the Lord without such tools, that's great, more power to ya!   If a person thinks that they might be worshipping an object in using an image then he should simply not use it.  As for
myself, I like to have a crucifix or two in my home.  For my morning prayer the one in the
living room serves to help focus my sleepy brain on Him, and what He did for me, as I
start the day.


More information to consider:

Here's a summary of Scripture passages...
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/sacramentals.html

Catholic Encyclopedia on "Veneration of Images"...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

"Statues in Church" by David MacDonald, a Catholic Convert...
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/statues_in_church.htm

Friday, October 8, 2010

That Which is Wrong with the Berean Beacon (www.bereanbeacon.org)

Anyone getting information from this web site who has an open mind should research Mr Bennett's references and consider context of the quotes he puts forth. God gave us a brain and freedom so that we can give Him the full assent of our intellect and will. To do this, we should look at all the information available to us and not just accept a guy who comes along and demonstrates "irrefutably" the errors of our faith system. (I mean this for non-Catholics as well as Catholics. If I tell you some doctrine of yours is wrong and give you some quotes, I hope you don't just accept my word without question. Look into it, prayerfully, and use the intellect and will and conscience God gave you to determine if I'm right.)

Everything for which Mr Bennett criticizes the Catholic Church is based on Scripture alone (actually, his own private interpretation thereof). He points out the errors of Catholic doctrine and behavior. The problem is his own private interpration is flawed. He does not consider the proper context.

Here's Mr Bennett's letter "Identifying the Early Church"
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/03_Church_History/Identifying_the_Ea\ rly_Church.pdf


To put into proper context his Scripture references and his concept of "Church", here are Scott Hahn's lectures on Salvation History...

One Holy Family
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst1.html

One Holy Tribe
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst2.html

One Holy Nation
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst3.html

One Holy Kingdom
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst4.html

One Holy Church
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst5.html


ON THE CHURCH FATHERS...

Mr Bennett sees the Apostolic Fathers as supporting Sola Scriptura as opposed to a visible hierarchical organization to spread the Gospel. His quotations seem to support his view. But, as he does with Scripture, he doesn't consider them in context.

For example, Here's a quote from Jerome contradicting him...

'And let them not flatter you themselves if they think they have
Scripture authority since the devil himself has quoted Scripture
texts...we could all, while preserving in the letter of Scripture,
read into it some novel doctrine'
ibid 28

Sola Scriptura in the early Church...
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/sola_her.htm


Pat Madrid shows how "sola scripture is unhistorical, unbiblical and unworkable."...
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT

Here's a collection of quotes of the Fathers. As with Scripture, quotes must be taken in context. More of the Father's writing must be read in order to see what he meant by any given quote...
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/TRAD.TXT


ON THE REAL APOSTOLIC BIBLE-CHURCH...

Mr. Bennett sees as truly-Biblicaly-Christian some particular groups in history, notably the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Paulicians. Does Mr Bennett know what these groups believed and practiced? They were each obviously counter-Scriptural in belief. They were heresies which were suppressed because their false doctrines were threatening the salvation of many souls with their preaching and in that day and age the secular authorities saw heresy as a threat to civil order.

Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia entries on these groups...

Waldenses: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm

Paulicians: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11583b.htm

Albigenses: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

The Real St Patrick

I'm currently investigating St Patrick.  Here's the Berean Beacon's take on the man... http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/03_Church_History/The_Legacy_of_the_Real_St_Patrick.pdf

To Be a Berean

I have been challenged to "Be a Berean" (Acts 17:10-11) and look at Scripture and see how the Gospel of Jesus contradicts the doctrines of the Catholic Church. I have accepted that challenge but have concluded that the Catholic Church is teaching truth. (Though I believed the Catholic doctrines in the first place, I did pose to myself questions such as "How can 'such and such' doctrine be supported in Scripture? I've never seen any Scriptural support!") (Incidentally, "To be a Berean" is a concept which already exists in the Catholic system... it is acquiring knowledge so that we can give the full assent of our intellect and will to God in our lives.)

Here's my journey in Bereanization...

First, I considered the Bereans themselves. Berea was a Greek city, so I presume they used the Greek language Bible, which in all likelihood would be the Septuagint, which in all probability included the deuterocanonical books (lacking in the modern Protestant translations). Some Catholic doctrines find
support in the "deutero's", sometimes more so than in the protocanonical books. (That's one reason the Protestant Reformers tossed them out of their canon of Scripture.) The Bereans were also of a culture/time/place/language which gave them a worldview that allowed them to correctly interpret Scripture without
great difficulty.

But here I am... 2000 years later, half a world away, in an utterly different culture, reading an American-English translation of the Scriptures. In order to correctly intreptret these Scriptures I need to understand the
culture/time/place/language/linguistic sense of the writers. In order to gain that understanding I need to learn it from other humans (unless God chooses to reveal it directly, but that's not generally the way He works). That is quite a bit of learning to acquire. So I'd spend a lifetime to learn all there is in those regards, and read the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures keeping in mind all the cultural customs and issues of the day. Then I would have come as close as is possible to "becoming a Berean" and could then most accurately interpret Scripture. But most people don't have the relative luxury or time, nor some the intellectual inclination, to take on such a daunting academic task. So we depend on others to guide our interpretation. In this way we accept a certain tradition of interpretation.

As for me, I read the New RSV Catholic Edition. I also read the writings of the post-Apostolic Christians (leaders of the Christians and the first Scripture-commentators) to see how they interpreted Scripture. I also read modern commentators (Protestant as well as Catholic). I also read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and refer to the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catholic Bible Dictionary. And Strong's Concordance. I also look in to secular historical information. Oh, yes, prayer is the first tool to use when delving in to Scripture.

At this point in my studies, I have learned the historical/cultural/linguistic/literary contextual interpretation of enough of the scriptures to conclude that Catholicism is true. Mainly, I've looked in to the contested doctrines (Holy Eucharist, Popery, Mary-ology, Sacramentalism, etc.) and found that they do have Scriptural support. When the proper context (historical/cultural/linguistic/literary) is considered, such doctrines, even if not explicitly described, are implicit and logically inferrable.


I have found the Catholic commentaries and explanations to be more thorough and logical, in general, than the Protestant commentaries and explanations. This is due to the nearly-2000-year history of the Church's study and pondering and prayer on Scripture. The Church's understanding of Apostolic doctrines grows and deepens with time and study and prayer and meditation. (But no new doctrine or public revelation has been introduced since the the last Apostle died.) Periodically through time the Church leadership will declare certain doctrines to be dogma. These dogmas are not new teachings but ancient teachings which are clarified (perhaps due to some church member teaching error) and henceforth required to be accepted by Catholics (and, indeed, all other Christians as well. But that's another discussion in itself). Examples are the three-person nature of God, the divinity of Jesus, the humanity of Jesus, and Adam and Eve being real people and the actual couple from whom has sprung every human being.


Scott Hahn does a good job conveying the contextual interpretation...

Here he's discussing Covenantal Salvation History, describing Christ's Church as
the ultimate outgrowth of the original family of God, Adam and Eve:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/Mod2.html

And here he Answers Common Objections to Catholicism:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/Mod4.html

(Those are transcripts of lectures. The audio can be found online.)

So, to truly be a Berean in this age and place and culture we need to accept a tradition to guide our  interpretation of Scripture. I choose the Tradition of Catholicism. It has sensible doctrines (when correctly understood) and is traceable to the Apostles. Non-Catholic traditions (notably Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide) can't be traced back to them and are not Scriptural.