Revelation 1 depicts Jesus having the "keys" of hell and death. Now, that is another symbolic reference. Being a symbol, and not a material set of keys, Jesus can still possess the "keys" after giving the "keys" to another man. (Jesus is the source of all power and authority and grace.) So, this verse does not rule out Peter possessing the "keys" (in the context meaning the "delegated authority" of the king). Besides, in Rev. 20:1 you'll find an angel also bearing the keys in question.
Interpreting the keys to be the "Gospel Message" to unlock the door to salvation to gentiles is valid on one level of interpretation. But that doesn't displace or contradict the interpretation of the keys as a symbol of Kingly authority and empowerment. Scripture usually has multiple levels of meaning and this is no exception.
The primary interpretation of the keys Jesus gave to Peter is: Kingly authority and power to lead and protect the King's people. The Davidic Kingdom was ruled by a king (duh). The king had a cabinet of ministers to take care of the day to day matters and the prime minister was the king's visier or vicar, vested with the king's power and authority by the king himself. The vicar was not a usurper, or "instead of" the king, he was doing the king's will. Isaiah 22:20ff describe the power and purpose of a Davidic King's conferral of the keys to his vicar. The vicar is described as being a "father" to the inhabitants of the kingdom (v 21). He has kingly authority to rule (v22). He is honored in that office (v23-24). (V25 refers to the end of time, the consummation, when the earthly aspect of the Church is no longer relevant.) Incidentally, you can see how God deals with unfaithful, corrupt vicars in verses 15-19. (The few evil popes in history were likewise dealt with.)
Matt 16:13ff parallel/fulfill that scene/prophecy in Isaiah. The fulfillment/transformation/perfection of the Davidic Covenant/Kingdom is the Church that Jesus built on the foundation of the Apostles. It resembles the Davidic Kingdom in certain ways, such as the King & ministers. David's Kingdom was the Kingdom of God manifested on earth. Just so, the New Covenant Church is the Kingdom of God manifested on earth and it features a visible hierarchical structure. Jesus vested in the Apostles judgeship of the Kingdom (Luke 22:29,30), the Church. This would be fatherly caretaking/disciplining, not despotic rulership.
Addendum December 14, 2012...
Besides Isaiah22, There are two other OT precedents for the concept of a king giving his authority to a guy... Joseph was empowered by Pharaoh to rule his kingdom (Gen 41:40ff); Daniel was given similar authority (Daniel 2). Notice also that the king/pharaoh first recognized that God, not man, gave them the knowledge they had. Considering these two pericopes along with Isaiah22, how can any one deny that King Jesus likewise empowered a man to be a visible leader, a "father", to His children on earth?
End Addendum.
While all Christians receive the Holy Spirit, Peter is the ONLY man to whom Jesus gave "keys". This does not usurp the Holy Spirit, it manifests the Spirit's power. In conjunction with that, John 21:15-17 (showing Jesus commanding Peter to care for His flock), leads us to conclude that Peter held a unique office as Christ's vicar on earth. And a plentitude of Scriptural evidence shows Peter performing the duties of such an office (Acts 1 - 15). The council of Jerusalem shows Peter speaking defitively. James merely supported Peter's directive. Selecting a successor to Judas demonstrates Apostolic succession. Peter is first to speak the Gospel to the world. Peter works the first healing of the apostles. Peter exercises the power Jesus delegated, in dealing with Ananias and Sapphira. His very shadow conveys God's grace to heal. Peter is first to teach salvation for Gentiles as well as Jews. ad infinitum... (And we realize these things illustrate the power of the office of Vicar, not any quality of the man himself, who was a sinner like all of us.)
Since King Jesus ascended to His throne in Heaven, His vicar (& his successor today) on earth,
guided by the Spirit, shepherds/teaches/guards the earthly flock (ie
John21:15-17, fulfilling Jeremiah 3:15) and leads/upholds the Apostles
(& their successors today) (Luke22:31-32).
The Holy Spirit is not the vicar on earth, He is the soul of the Church. In John 15:26 Jesus was speaking to the Apostles (they are the ministers of the King). After Jesus ascended, the Spirit would guide the Apostles to all truth and remind them of everything Jesus taught them. In this way they would be able to infallibly preach the Gospel to the world and prepare men to succeed them.
All believers have the indwelling of the Spirit but not all to the same effect, not all believers have the same role in the Kingdom (1Cor12) . The Apostles were made leaders of the infant Church and they appointed successors & expansions of that Bishopric office (ie Matthias, Titus, Timothy).
Some mention Romans 1:15 to imply that Peter did not go to Rome. However, it is widely accepted that Paul was at Rome with Peter and they were both martyred there. There is plenty of historical and archaeological evidence supporting that idea. I'm sure there was plenty of evangelizing to do in Rome without Paul usurping Peter's authority as Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ.
The Gospel Message is indeed the focus of Scripture. And the mechanism Jesus set up, by which that message is spread and protected, is a visible, organized society, not just a spiritual association. Salvation History demonstrates that God uses flawed, sinful men to accomplish His flawless, holy plan.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Allah... the God of Abraham?
So, the Koran says God has no children and that Allah is the God of Abraham. But this contradicts pre-existing, established, Scripture. Genesis describes God creating the universe and becoming a father to a man (and, by extension, his offspring the whole human race).
Adam was made "in our image and likeness" (Gen 1:26-27, 5:1). This means Adam was God's son and so God was Adam's Father (because Gen 5:3 describes Adam fathering a son "in his image and likeness").
Before Adam and Eve sinned they were God's children, with eternal life, and the world had no suffering or bloodshed or death. Their first sin brought those things into the world, causing it to become the violent place as we know it. This also caused an unfathomable and humanly unbridgable rift between God and mankind. (This was an infinite debt.) They lost the divine sonship for themselves and their descendants. But even back then God hinted at humankind's future redemption (Gen 3:15). That hint was fulfilled with the coming of Jesus, God's only-begotten and true son.
That's how much God loves us, His lowly creatures. First He loved us into existance and then he saved us from ourselves, through his own Son Jesus, sacrificed in order to pay the infinite debt we owed to Him. The sacrifice of this God-Man Jesus bridged the gulf that kept us away from almighty all-righteous God. Once again humans can claim the original status of sonship to God, which was lost to us by Adam. When we accept Jesus as our mediator with God and payment for our sins, we become God's child, by adoption, and He becomes our Father. Because of this, we get to spend eternity in Heaven. To die without sonship to God is to spend eternity separated from Him.
God is a true Father. Scripture, which predates the Koran, describes God fathering His family from Creation (Genesis) to Redemption (Gospels) to Final Sanctification and Consummation (Revelation).
Since Allah, as described by the Koran, does not match the God described in Genesis, I can only conclude that Allah is not, after all, the God of Abraham.
Adam was made "in our image and likeness" (Gen 1:26-27, 5:1). This means Adam was God's son and so God was Adam's Father (because Gen 5:3 describes Adam fathering a son "in his image and likeness").
Before Adam and Eve sinned they were God's children, with eternal life, and the world had no suffering or bloodshed or death. Their first sin brought those things into the world, causing it to become the violent place as we know it. This also caused an unfathomable and humanly unbridgable rift between God and mankind. (This was an infinite debt.) They lost the divine sonship for themselves and their descendants. But even back then God hinted at humankind's future redemption (Gen 3:15). That hint was fulfilled with the coming of Jesus, God's only-begotten and true son.
That's how much God loves us, His lowly creatures. First He loved us into existance and then he saved us from ourselves, through his own Son Jesus, sacrificed in order to pay the infinite debt we owed to Him. The sacrifice of this God-Man Jesus bridged the gulf that kept us away from almighty all-righteous God. Once again humans can claim the original status of sonship to God, which was lost to us by Adam. When we accept Jesus as our mediator with God and payment for our sins, we become God's child, by adoption, and He becomes our Father. Because of this, we get to spend eternity in Heaven. To die without sonship to God is to spend eternity separated from Him.
God is a true Father. Scripture, which predates the Koran, describes God fathering His family from Creation (Genesis) to Redemption (Gospels) to Final Sanctification and Consummation (Revelation).
Since Allah, as described by the Koran, does not match the God described in Genesis, I can only conclude that Allah is not, after all, the God of Abraham.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Roman Catholic Mass
Mr Bennett's view on the Mass is expounded in this article:
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/01_On_Catholicism/The_Cross_and_the_Mass.pdf
I can give no better refutation than what can be accomplished by pointing you to works which manifestly destroy Mr Bennett's position on this issue. Mr Bennett doesn't consider Scripture as a whole in his exegesis of the parts he discusses. When you put the Last Supper in it's proper context, (Passover and the rest of salvation history and understand it as the Jews did) you can see that Christ does indeed miraculously change the bread and wine into His body and blood.
Eucharist, Holy Meal:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html
The Lamb's Supper: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/lmbsp.html
The Fourth Cup: The Sacrament of the Eucharist:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html
The Lamb's Supper: The Bible and the Mass:
This article demonstrates how the Mass is straight from Scripture...
http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online/the_lambs_supper_the_bible_and_the_mass
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/01_On_Catholicism/The_Cross_and_the_Mass.pdf
I can give no better refutation than what can be accomplished by pointing you to works which manifestly destroy Mr Bennett's position on this issue. Mr Bennett doesn't consider Scripture as a whole in his exegesis of the parts he discusses. When you put the Last Supper in it's proper context, (Passover and the rest of salvation history and understand it as the Jews did) you can see that Christ does indeed miraculously change the bread and wine into His body and blood.
Eucharist, Holy Meal:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html
The Lamb's Supper: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/lmbsp.html
The Fourth Cup: The Sacrament of the Eucharist:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html
The Lamb's Supper: The Bible and the Mass:
This article demonstrates how the Mass is straight from Scripture...
http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/courses/online/the_lambs_supper_the_bible_and_the_mass
Monday, July 18, 2011
King James Version Only? (KJV-, KJB-Only?)
First of all, I like the KJB (and the Douay-Rheims Bible), because of the language. Once I learned how to understand the "archaic" English phrases, it seems to convey meaning better. For example, "thou" and "ye". They're the same except "thou" and "thee" are singular (referring to one person) and "ye" and "you" are plural (referring to all in a group). This is an important distinction. For example, Jesus said to Peter "And I will give unto thee the keys" Mattt16:19. Only Peter got the keys. But, "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" Matt 18:18. Here, all the apostles received the authority to forgive sins and reconcile sinners with the Church. Modern English versions have "you" in both places. While it's true that considering the context can determine the singularity or plurality of "you", I find that understanding comes more readily, and there is less misunderstanding, when thou and ye are used.
The KJV-Only folks referred me to this book Which Version Is the Bible? to provide evidence supporting the KJV as THE Bible in English (by which they mean it is the only infallible English bible), so I read it and here's my review. (But don't trust me, read it yourself and research my assertions. Follow up all references given by authors (if they don't give references, don't trust them). References I've used are at the end of this article.)
Which Version Is the Bible? by Floyd Nolen Jones.
My notes are below. To summarize my conclusions: These translation differences are not so bad as Dr Jones is saying. The interpretation problems which might result from the "bad" translations he compares are negated by proper Scriptural exegesis (ie consider all of Scripture when interpreting any small part of Scripture), even in the paradigm of Sola-Scriptura. In the paradigm of Catholicism, Dr Jones' fears are totally invalid because the teaching authority of the Apostolic successors would prevent faulty interpretation.
"To The Reader - The Sounding of an Alarm"
In Isaiah 14 the primary use of "heosphoros" (literally "light bearer", variously translated as "Lucifer" or "morning" or "day star") is as metaphor, applied to the King of Babylon as preeminent among the princes of his time. Isaiah 13 helps set this context. The secondary meaning of Isaiah 14 can be applying it to Satan. Dr Jones seems to think it can be fatal to the faith if "Lucifer" is not tied to Satan in this verse, but even without using the word "Lucifer", we can still apply this passage to Satan, when guided by the Church's teaching.
Dr Jones takes issue with translations not using "Lucifer". But "lucifer" is not primarily a name, instead it's a description, "light bearer" or "bringer of light" or "shining one". It has become a name for Satan over time. Being Latin, why insist that "Lucifer" to be only valid translation to the English, since the Vulgate was considered a "corrupt" translation? But it didn't come from the Greek, it came from the Hebrew.
"lucifer" was used by Jerome in the Vulgate in several places besides Isaiah 14 (see Lucifer in Catholic Encyclopedia).
Latin Lucifer ~ Greek heosphoros ἑωσφόρος ~ Hebrew helel
Strong's H1984 definition of "halal"
make boast self, celebrate, commend, deal, make, foolish glory, give light, be make, A primitive root; to be clear (orig. Of sound, but usually of color); to shine; hence, to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively, to celebrate; also to stultify -- (make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool(- ish, -ly), glory, give (light), be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, (sing, be worthy of) praise, rage, renowned, shine.
heosphoros found in these places:
ἑωσφόρος in Job 11:17; KJV "morning"; D-RV "day star"; RSV "morning"; NIV "morning"
ἑωσφόρου in Psalm 110:3; KJV "morning"; D-RV "day star"; RSV "morning"; NIV "morning"
ἑωσφόρος in Isaiah 14:12; KJV "Lucifer"; D-RV "Lucifer"; RSV "day star"; NIV "morning star"
Section "A BIBLICAL CREDIBILITY CRISIS "
This section is generally reasonable.
Dr Jones states "Before accepting the conclusions of a particular textual critic, one should evaluate
both his theological presuppositions and criteria." This is sound advice. This concept means we are all guided by a certain tradition of interpretation (whether we admit it or not). Catholics are quick to admit they follow a certain tradition, which they call "Sacred Tradition" or "Apostolic Tradition" (meaning it's a tradition guided by the Spirit).
Section PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?
Dr Jones submits that in OT days the Levitical priesthood was responsible for copying and thus preserving the "Living Words of God" infallibly. This makes sense so far. But he declares that the Masoretic Text (the oldest example being from c900 AD) is the true text because it is from the Levites, whereas the Dead Sea Scrolls (more than a thousand years older) are from the Essenes (non-Levites) and therefore can't be the true text. The problem with his logic is that since Christ came and transferred the priesthood to all believers (except the pastoral, ministerial aspect) the Levitical priesthood is obsolete. So, when the Jewish Levites after Christ copied Scripture they would not have necessarily been guided infallibly. Therefore, the Masoretic Text cannot be counted on to be pure (which Dr Jones counts on). Dr Jones then declares the Septuagint (LXX) to be spurious because of the differences compared to the Masoretic Text "As the Hebrew Masoretic text is the inerrant, infallible Word of God – the Septuagint should be seen as spurious and rejected.". He further states "We cannot even be certain that the LXX which we have extant today (c.350 A.D.) is a faithful reproduction of the c.260 B.C. original." It's interesting he says this because this is my conclusion concerning the Masoretic Text because the age of the earliest example means almost a thousand years since the last legitimate priest copied it. I wouldn't hold the Masoretic Text to be the pure one, as far as his logic is concerned.
Dr Jones next informs us of the care and dedication of the "early Christians" who copied the Scriptures. He fails to mention that these men were Catholic monks and priests and brothers.
He quotes 2Cor 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God ". He says this indicates that there was trouble with the purity of the Bible text. But I don't think Paul was talking about ink on paper, but instead the teachings of God which Paul preached.
Dr Jones always treats the phrase "the word of God" to mean ink on paper. That seems erroneous to me. Scripture never says the word of God is limited to the written form.
[Sola Scriptura-based ramblings]...
"The real issue here is that of authority." He's absolutely right. He says scholars and teachers and the pope or the head of one's denomination get in between the layman and God. In the paradigm of Sola Scriptura, this might be true. But, in the paradigm of Christ establishing His Church to be the primary means to spread and protect His teachings, these scholars and teachers and pope are instead enablers of our deeper understanding of Scripture.
Since we don't have the original MSS God must have either: a) in Sola-Scriptura-World, God ensured infallible reproduction of the written word or b) in Authoritative-Church-World God ensured the infallible transmission of the teachings via Scripture and Tradition. Scripture translations and interpretations would be guided by Tradition. The authoritative body would be infallible in these matters and the written Word would be protected from serious flaws by it. In the case of a), the Christian should find out if he has THE correct translation in his language. He then has to depend on others to give him information he'll use to decide this. He will thus be accepting something non-Scripture to tell him what is Scripture. (It seems to me Sola Scriptura is illogical for this reason.) In the case of b), the Christian can rest assured that they are getting God's Word, even if there were NO bibles in the world, through the teaching authority Christ established.
BIBLICAL COMPARISONS
Dr Jones presents numerous verse comparisons and bemoans the "danger" of the non-KJ translations. But the different translations do not really have such severe theological implications as he says or implies. In Sola-Scriptura-World there is a chance he might be right, but in Authoritative-Church-World he is definitely wrong because the successors to the Apostles lead us in the correct interpretations.
[Here's a great parallel NT site: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index.htm
showing several Greek, Latin, and several English translations.]
[TR = Textus Receptus BM=Byzantine Majority]
He compares three "modern" translations. He doesn't examine the Douay-Reims Version (D-RV), which is extremely similar to the KJV.
Col 1:14
Even though "through his blood" is missing in the "other" translations, this is does not have a serious doctrinal impact because there's plenty of other Scripture telling us that the blood of Jesus spilt is what saves us. Without that sacrifice our sins would not be paid for.
D-RV agrees with KJV, despite the Alexandrian text differing from the TR and BM.
1Tim 3:16
Where KJV has "God was" and the other protestant English bible have "He who was", the D-RV has "which was". This seems to correspond to the Alexandrian text, where the TR and BM have "God was". Despite this difference the D-RV is interpreted identically with the KJV which is to say God became man, etc.
Isaiah 7:14
Matt 1:25
He takes Matt 1:25 to mean Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus. He doesn't consider that "firstborn" is more a title than a description, in the Jewish culture. The firstborn son is consecrated to God (Ex 13:2) and is the default heir to the father's wealth and status. Jesus is the "firstborn" of God the Father, as well as of Mary and Joseph. The phrase "till" here does not mean "not before the birth of the firstborn and then she had sex". It means up to that time and forevermore. Another example: "Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool."
Translation Differences: D-RV agrees with KJV here. The Alexandrian differs from the TR and BM which are the same.
Matt 4:10.
Dr Jones' issue here has to do with translating the greek word for worship. He doesn't like the translations to use "bowing down" for "worshipping". I'm no linguistic expert, but I agree here in that this is related to Catholic honoring of saintly statues and relics. A Catholic might be kneeling, or even bowing, in front of a statue of Mary while seeking her intercession but this isn't worship. It is paying respect and honor, but not adoration. (In Japanese culture people bow to eachother. They're not worshipping eachother, they are paying respect.)
Translation Differences: D-RV agrees with KJV here. The Alexandrian and TR are the same, where the Byzantine Majority is a little different.
Matt6:13.
"For Thine is the kingdom...": This is not originally Scripture but part of the liturgy, basically present in the Didache. More:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/quaeritur-why-is-the-protestant-for-the-kingdom-the-power-the-glory-in-our-catholic-mass/
Translation Differences: D-RV differs with KJV here. The Alexandrian differs from the TR and BM which are all the same.
Dr Jones says the RCC omits this because it contradicts her teaching that the millenial reign is figurative (not literal 1000 years on earth). Dr Jones then misrepresents what the RCC teaches on this. The RCC teaches that the millienial Kingdom began when Jesus was enthroned in Heaven. (Not because "the Pope is ruling on the throne in the Vatican State in Christ's stead"). It is the Church Age. The RCC doesn't teach that all people will be converted. (But they would if they accepted Jesus). The Church is indeed the New Israel. It is the New Covenant transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant people of God, Israel. National Israel is no longer His chosen people. Christians, forming His Church, are. Israel was God's Firstborn Son (Exodus). Like so many other Firstborn Sons who lost their inheritance (ie Esau), Israel gave up it's birthright, by rejecting the Savior whom God sent.
Matt 19:17.
D-RV says "17 Who said to him: Why do you ask me concerning good? One is good, God. But if you will enter into life, keep the commandments."
Either translation makes sense when you look at the question He was answering: " Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?"
Mark 1:2-3.
There's no doctrinal misunderstanding here. Knowledge of OT, and guidance of the Church, would negate any misinterpretation which Dr Jones fears.
Mark 9:43-44
D-RV is same as KJV. Verse 44 is not present in Alexandrian Text. Vulgate has it.
Origen:
typical allegations against him... further research is warranted...
-source of the adulteration of Holy Writ (ie Hexapla)
-castrated himself(?) and went barefoot for heavenly rewards
-didn't believe in divinity of Jesus (gnostic?)
Dr Jones cites Hislop's The Two Babylons in describing the supposed pagan roots of Catholic ritualism and traditions. But Hislop's book has been shown to be vastly erroneous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons
http://www.catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp
=========================
Other References & Links to related information:
A Baptist Minister's view on the issue:
http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org/booklets/kjv.html
Tyndale & English Bibles...http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/charge.htm
KJV, "Pure Cambridge Edition", self-professed to be the ONLY correct edition of THE Bible in English (KJV-Onlyists say "KJV is THE Bible in English", even within the KJV-Only camp there is division).
(This guy is so zealous for KJV-PCE that he burns other versions he isn't happy with, on the basis that they defile the Word of God.) Nevertheless, this online bible is very handy.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/thebible.htm
Wikipedia article on KJV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#CITEREFDaniell2003
A Catholic Parallel Bible (Greek/English/Latin):
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm
Parallel Old Testament (Hebrew/Latin/Multiple English):
http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/
Parallel New Testament (Multiple Greek/Latin/Multiple English):
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/
The KJV-Only folks referred me to this book Which Version Is the Bible? to provide evidence supporting the KJV as THE Bible in English (by which they mean it is the only infallible English bible), so I read it and here's my review. (But don't trust me, read it yourself and research my assertions. Follow up all references given by authors (if they don't give references, don't trust them). References I've used are at the end of this article.)
Which Version Is the Bible? by Floyd Nolen Jones.
My notes are below. To summarize my conclusions: These translation differences are not so bad as Dr Jones is saying. The interpretation problems which might result from the "bad" translations he compares are negated by proper Scriptural exegesis (ie consider all of Scripture when interpreting any small part of Scripture), even in the paradigm of Sola-Scriptura. In the paradigm of Catholicism, Dr Jones' fears are totally invalid because the teaching authority of the Apostolic successors would prevent faulty interpretation.
"To The Reader - The Sounding of an Alarm"
In Isaiah 14 the primary use of "heosphoros" (literally "light bearer", variously translated as "Lucifer" or "morning" or "day star") is as metaphor, applied to the King of Babylon as preeminent among the princes of his time. Isaiah 13 helps set this context. The secondary meaning of Isaiah 14 can be applying it to Satan. Dr Jones seems to think it can be fatal to the faith if "Lucifer" is not tied to Satan in this verse, but even without using the word "Lucifer", we can still apply this passage to Satan, when guided by the Church's teaching.
Dr Jones takes issue with translations not using "Lucifer". But "lucifer" is not primarily a name, instead it's a description, "light bearer" or "bringer of light" or "shining one". It has become a name for Satan over time. Being Latin, why insist that "Lucifer" to be only valid translation to the English, since the Vulgate was considered a "corrupt" translation? But it didn't come from the Greek, it came from the Hebrew.
"lucifer" was used by Jerome in the Vulgate in several places besides Isaiah 14 (see Lucifer in Catholic Encyclopedia).
Latin Lucifer ~ Greek heosphoros ἑωσφόρος ~ Hebrew helel
Strong's H1984 definition of "halal"
make boast self, celebrate, commend, deal, make, foolish glory, give light, be make, A primitive root; to be clear (orig. Of sound, but usually of color); to shine; hence, to make a show, to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively, to celebrate; also to stultify -- (make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool(- ish, -ly), glory, give (light), be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, (sing, be worthy of) praise, rage, renowned, shine.
heosphoros found in these places:
ἑωσφόρος in Job 11:17; KJV "morning"; D-RV "day star"; RSV "morning"; NIV "morning"
ἑωσφόρου in Psalm 110:3; KJV "morning"; D-RV "day star"; RSV "morning"; NIV "morning"
ἑωσφόρος in Isaiah 14:12; KJV "Lucifer"; D-RV "Lucifer"; RSV "day star"; NIV "morning star"
Section "A BIBLICAL CREDIBILITY CRISIS "
This section is generally reasonable.
Dr Jones states "Before accepting the conclusions of a particular textual critic, one should evaluate
both his theological presuppositions and criteria." This is sound advice. This concept means we are all guided by a certain tradition of interpretation (whether we admit it or not). Catholics are quick to admit they follow a certain tradition, which they call "Sacred Tradition" or "Apostolic Tradition" (meaning it's a tradition guided by the Spirit).
Section PRESERVATION OR RESTORATION?
Dr Jones submits that in OT days the Levitical priesthood was responsible for copying and thus preserving the "Living Words of God" infallibly. This makes sense so far. But he declares that the Masoretic Text (the oldest example being from c900 AD) is the true text because it is from the Levites, whereas the Dead Sea Scrolls (more than a thousand years older) are from the Essenes (non-Levites) and therefore can't be the true text. The problem with his logic is that since Christ came and transferred the priesthood to all believers (except the pastoral, ministerial aspect) the Levitical priesthood is obsolete. So, when the Jewish Levites after Christ copied Scripture they would not have necessarily been guided infallibly. Therefore, the Masoretic Text cannot be counted on to be pure (which Dr Jones counts on). Dr Jones then declares the Septuagint (LXX) to be spurious because of the differences compared to the Masoretic Text "As the Hebrew Masoretic text is the inerrant, infallible Word of God – the Septuagint should be seen as spurious and rejected.". He further states "We cannot even be certain that the LXX which we have extant today (c.350 A.D.) is a faithful reproduction of the c.260 B.C. original." It's interesting he says this because this is my conclusion concerning the Masoretic Text because the age of the earliest example means almost a thousand years since the last legitimate priest copied it. I wouldn't hold the Masoretic Text to be the pure one, as far as his logic is concerned.
Dr Jones next informs us of the care and dedication of the "early Christians" who copied the Scriptures. He fails to mention that these men were Catholic monks and priests and brothers.
He quotes 2Cor 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God ". He says this indicates that there was trouble with the purity of the Bible text. But I don't think Paul was talking about ink on paper, but instead the teachings of God which Paul preached.
Dr Jones always treats the phrase "the word of God" to mean ink on paper. That seems erroneous to me. Scripture never says the word of God is limited to the written form.
[Sola Scriptura-based ramblings]...
"The real issue here is that of authority." He's absolutely right. He says scholars and teachers and the pope or the head of one's denomination get in between the layman and God. In the paradigm of Sola Scriptura, this might be true. But, in the paradigm of Christ establishing His Church to be the primary means to spread and protect His teachings, these scholars and teachers and pope are instead enablers of our deeper understanding of Scripture.
Since we don't have the original MSS God must have either: a) in Sola-Scriptura-World, God ensured infallible reproduction of the written word or b) in Authoritative-Church-World God ensured the infallible transmission of the teachings via Scripture and Tradition. Scripture translations and interpretations would be guided by Tradition. The authoritative body would be infallible in these matters and the written Word would be protected from serious flaws by it. In the case of a), the Christian should find out if he has THE correct translation in his language. He then has to depend on others to give him information he'll use to decide this. He will thus be accepting something non-Scripture to tell him what is Scripture. (It seems to me Sola Scriptura is illogical for this reason.) In the case of b), the Christian can rest assured that they are getting God's Word, even if there were NO bibles in the world, through the teaching authority Christ established.
BIBLICAL COMPARISONS
Dr Jones presents numerous verse comparisons and bemoans the "danger" of the non-KJ translations. But the different translations do not really have such severe theological implications as he says or implies. In Sola-Scriptura-World there is a chance he might be right, but in Authoritative-Church-World he is definitely wrong because the successors to the Apostles lead us in the correct interpretations.
[Here's a great parallel NT site: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index.htm
showing several Greek, Latin, and several English translations.]
[TR = Textus Receptus BM=Byzantine Majority]
He compares three "modern" translations. He doesn't examine the Douay-Reims Version (D-RV), which is extremely similar to the KJV.
Col 1:14
Even though "through his blood" is missing in the "other" translations, this is does not have a serious doctrinal impact because there's plenty of other Scripture telling us that the blood of Jesus spilt is what saves us. Without that sacrifice our sins would not be paid for.
D-RV agrees with KJV, despite the Alexandrian text differing from the TR and BM.
1Tim 3:16
Where KJV has "God was" and the other protestant English bible have "He who was", the D-RV has "which was". This seems to correspond to the Alexandrian text, where the TR and BM have "God was". Despite this difference the D-RV is interpreted identically with the KJV which is to say God became man, etc.
Isaiah 7:14
Matt 1:25
He takes Matt 1:25 to mean Mary and Joseph had children after Jesus. He doesn't consider that "firstborn" is more a title than a description, in the Jewish culture. The firstborn son is consecrated to God (Ex 13:2) and is the default heir to the father's wealth and status. Jesus is the "firstborn" of God the Father, as well as of Mary and Joseph. The phrase "till" here does not mean "not before the birth of the firstborn and then she had sex". It means up to that time and forevermore. Another example: "Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool."
Translation Differences: D-RV agrees with KJV here. The Alexandrian differs from the TR and BM which are the same.
Matt 4:10.
Dr Jones' issue here has to do with translating the greek word for worship. He doesn't like the translations to use "bowing down" for "worshipping". I'm no linguistic expert, but I agree here in that this is related to Catholic honoring of saintly statues and relics. A Catholic might be kneeling, or even bowing, in front of a statue of Mary while seeking her intercession but this isn't worship. It is paying respect and honor, but not adoration. (In Japanese culture people bow to eachother. They're not worshipping eachother, they are paying respect.)
Translation Differences: D-RV agrees with KJV here. The Alexandrian and TR are the same, where the Byzantine Majority is a little different.
Matt6:13.
"For Thine is the kingdom...": This is not originally Scripture but part of the liturgy, basically present in the Didache. More:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/quaeritur-why-is-the-protestant-for-the-kingdom-the-power-the-glory-in-our-catholic-mass/
Translation Differences: D-RV differs with KJV here. The Alexandrian differs from the TR and BM which are all the same.
Dr Jones says the RCC omits this because it contradicts her teaching that the millenial reign is figurative (not literal 1000 years on earth). Dr Jones then misrepresents what the RCC teaches on this. The RCC teaches that the millienial Kingdom began when Jesus was enthroned in Heaven. (Not because "the Pope is ruling on the throne in the Vatican State in Christ's stead"). It is the Church Age. The RCC doesn't teach that all people will be converted. (But they would if they accepted Jesus). The Church is indeed the New Israel. It is the New Covenant transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant people of God, Israel. National Israel is no longer His chosen people. Christians, forming His Church, are. Israel was God's Firstborn Son (Exodus). Like so many other Firstborn Sons who lost their inheritance (ie Esau), Israel gave up it's birthright, by rejecting the Savior whom God sent.
Matt 19:17.
D-RV says "17 Who said to him: Why do you ask me concerning good? One is good, God. But if you will enter into life, keep the commandments."
Either translation makes sense when you look at the question He was answering: " Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?"
Mark 1:2-3.
There's no doctrinal misunderstanding here. Knowledge of OT, and guidance of the Church, would negate any misinterpretation which Dr Jones fears.
Mark 9:43-44
D-RV is same as KJV. Verse 44 is not present in Alexandrian Text. Vulgate has it.
Origen:
typical allegations against him... further research is warranted...
-source of the adulteration of Holy Writ (ie Hexapla)
-castrated himself(?) and went barefoot for heavenly rewards
-didn't believe in divinity of Jesus (gnostic?)
Dr Jones cites Hislop's The Two Babylons in describing the supposed pagan roots of Catholic ritualism and traditions. But Hislop's book has been shown to be vastly erroneous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons
http://www.catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp
=========================
Other References & Links to related information:
A Baptist Minister's view on the issue:
http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org/booklets/kjv.html
Tyndale & English Bibles...http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/charge.htm
KJV, "Pure Cambridge Edition", self-professed to be the ONLY correct edition of THE Bible in English (KJV-Onlyists say "KJV is THE Bible in English", even within the KJV-Only camp there is division).
(This guy is so zealous for KJV-PCE that he burns other versions he isn't happy with, on the basis that they defile the Word of God.) Nevertheless, this online bible is very handy.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/thebible.htm
Wikipedia article on KJV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#CITEREFDaniell2003
A Catholic Parallel Bible (Greek/English/Latin):
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm
Parallel Old Testament (Hebrew/Latin/Multiple English):
http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/
Parallel New Testament (Multiple Greek/Latin/Multiple English):
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/
Friday, March 25, 2011
Salvation and the Sacraments
Mr Bennett's article, "Salvation and the Sacraments":
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/01_On_Catholicism/Salvation_and_the_Sacraments.pdf
This article begins by describing his understanding of the concept of "justification". I pointed out his errors on that in my blog entry http://americanberean.blogspot.com/2010/12/salvation-gods-graciousness-in-christ.html.
Now, on to the Sacraments. Mr Bennett believes they are merely rituals of men which blaspheme God by claiming Godly power to dispense grace. But they are more than empty rituals and do convey grace (by God's power, not man's). The catechism describes them as "outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace". I think it was Augustine who called them "visible signs of an invisible reality". As Scott Hahn summarized it: "The sacraments are God's tools for our sanctification. They are not magical and they are not mechanical. They are powerful because Christ is the one who has instituted them because Christ is the sacrament. Christ is the oath that God has sworn for our salvation. "
Here's a good summary of the Sacraments:
http://www.jesuschristsavior.net/Sacraments.html
Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Sacraments:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm.
Here's a summary description of the system of Sacraments:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/sacraments_sacramentals.htm
Scott Hahn lectures on the Sacraments:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/Mod5.html
Mr Bennett doesn't believe the Church of Jesus possesses a world-wide, visible, organized aspect. It's natural, then, that he doesn't accept the idea of God's spiritual grace being distributed through material means. But when one accepts the material aspect of the Church along with the spiritual aspect, sacraments are obviously part and parcel of God's management of His kingdom. Look at Jesus (and ourselves, as well): He possesses material and spiritual aspects. So does His Church and so do the Sacraments. This article describes the visible vs. the invisible Church: http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/vatican_says_protestants_not_churches.htm.
The New Covenant is the fulfillment, transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant included verbal oaths ( greek: orchia; latin: sacramentum) between God and men. Good things were promised for obedience and curses for disobedience. The men (ie Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David) failed to live up to their side of the covenants, thus bringing down curses upon the people of God. But God always promised a redeemer. Eventually, God accepted the curses of disobedience upon Himself by allowing his only begotten son to be tortured and killed despite His innocence. In this way, He redeemed all who call upon His name for salvation. So Jesus Himself is a sacrament (oath); actually THE sacrament from which all the other sacraments get their power.
Even rituals of the Old Covenant can have their perfect New Covenant fulfillment. For example, the Old Covenant Passover finds its fulfillment, transformation and perfection in the ritual instituted at the Last Supper. Here Jesus instituted the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The event was a Passover meal which required, at the end, consuming a sacrificial lamb. There was no baby sheep present in the upper room. Jesus is known as the Lamb of God. Jesus said (to paraphrase) "take this and eat it, this is my body, this is my blood, do this in memory of me", referring to the bread and wine and its consumption. These four points, along with the "bread of life" discourse in John 6, and numerous Old Testament pre-figurements (ie Melchizedek), lead to the inescapable conclusion that the bread and wine became His true flesh and blood (even though it's not detectable to our material senses). Three lectures by Scott Hahn really shed light on the Eucharist (these are each stand-alone, not dependent on each other):
The Lamb's Supper:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/lmbsp.html
The Fourth Cup:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html
The Meal of Melchizedek:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html
John's Gospel is replete with "sacramental" actions. John calls the Jesus' actions "signs". Those actions both symbolized (being visible signs) and caused the transmission of grace to heal. http://www.salvationhistory.com/documents/scripture/04_Hahn_9-12.pdf
---
Baptism:
Mr Bennett states "Faith is so indispensable that though one be baptized yet believes not, he shall be damned. The sinner is condemned because of his sin nature and his personal sin. God’s divine justice is upon him, nothing can propitiate God’s justice but saving faith in Christ."
He's right. And that is what Catholicism teaches. Nothing matters if we have not faith in the first place. But he goes on "This faith by God grace brings instantly God’s act of justification." Yes and No. If we died right then, we'd get in to heaven. But if we continued on in this world but refused to be baptized while knowing we should be, we'd no longer have that justification. Baptism is not a mere act of obedience. It is the New Covenant fulfillment, transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant sign, circumcision. That circumcision has been transformed in to a new ritual which is more than symbol. It brings about true spiritual cleansing. The outward signs of water on the person (whether full immersion or sprinkling) and the invocation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are the cause and indication that God's Sanctifying grace is poured in to that person. The ritual is the cause, not by the ritual's inherent power (which is none, of course), but by the reason that that is how Jesus told us to initiate the believer into the family of God and so He uses that ritual to be the moment He infuses His sanctifying grace into the new family member. Then he is justified, made righteous, due to God's life now in him.
It is because of this true cleansing/regenerating effect that babies are baptized and the stain of the sin of Adam (Original Sin) is removed from them, thus justifying them. They are brought in to God's family by this efficacious ritual. Later in life that child will decide whether or not to remain in God's family.
The New Covenant's Baptism also supercedes John's Baptism. His was a baptism of repentance and the washing in water was just a sign of the person's faith and repentance.
With the coming of Christ the Holy Spirit is now available to indwell all believers. The New Baptism is a sign which is used by God to make us His children. Upon our baptism the spirit indwells us and God declares to the world "This is my son (or daughter)." This can happen to the infant who is baptized even without their having declared Jesus their savior. But for anyone capable of discerning a choice, he must have faith, and believe, for baptism to save him.
Summary of Scriptural and Patristic references to baptism:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html
Scott Hahn on Baptism:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt3.html
Why Baptize Babies?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/infant_baptism.htm
Church Fathers on Infant Baptism:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm
Church Fathers on Born Again:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/borna.htm
Church Fathers on Triune formula, immersion/sprinkling, etc.:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/tribap.htm
Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
---
Confirmation:
When we are old enough to choose our destiny (ie to follow Jesus or not) we are "confirmed" through the laying-on of hands by our bishop. The sacrament results in the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit into us to strengthen us as we grow into young men and women and become more involved in the wide world. We need the extra grace we receive through this sacrament to be effective soldiers of Christ in the spiritual warfare of this fallen world.
Think of this as the Catholic version of the "Altar Call" of the evangelical Christians.
The recipient of this Sacrament publicly proclaims his accepting Jesus by his coming up to the altar where the bishop will lay his hands upon him and anoint him with oil. Sound familiar? Scripture abounds with events of laying on hands and anointing with oil.
Tim Sullivon describes Confirmation, providing the Old and New Testament context for the present doctrine:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/CONFIRM1.HTM
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm
Summary of Scriptural and Patristic references to confirmation:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confirmation.html
Scott Hahn on Confirmation:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt3.html
---
Eucharist:
I described this in a paragraph above, for the purpose of illustrating a reality of the New Covenant. Here are some more supporting links:
Here is a video rebuttal of Mr Bennett on the Eucharist, by gnrhead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUoah7McAvI
Summary of Scriptural and Patristic references:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
Real Presence:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/eucharist.htm
Church Fathers on the Real Presence:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm
Church Fathers on Transubstantiation:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm
---
Penance (or Reconciliation or Confession):
Christ empowered (indeed, commanded) His ministers to forgive sins in His name (John 20:19-23). James 5:16 tells us to confess our sins to another. Proverbs 28:13 states "He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy." This is all what this sacrament is all about. Jesus gave us this sacrament so a believer who has fallen in to mortal sin can have a means to come back to His family. John mentions mortal sins and venial sins in 1John 5:16-17 "If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly." So, deadly (mortal) sin (which is intentional and serious) separates us from our inheritance, but non-deadly (venial) sin does not.
We are called to confess our sins and ask forgiveness, not just once, at the time of our "salvation moment" when we first call to Jesus to save our soul, but for every sin we commit after that salvation moment. We all are still sinners, some of us to the extent that we evict the Holy Spirit from ourselves (through mortal sin). Proverbs 28:13 is apt here. The non-mortal (venial) sins we commit don't sever our relationship with God, but do harm us spiritually. With unrepented & unconfessed venial sins in our hearts, we are more susceptible to temptation and can sin in progressively more serious ways. It can be a snowball effect, or a slippery slope, with the end result of mortal sin and loss of our inheritance. But by regularly repenting of, and confessing, even our venial sins, we grow in Spirit and become more resistant to temptations thus preventing any potential sin-snowball effect.
Call no Man Father?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/priests_forgive_sins_call_no_man_father.htm
A "Punishing" God?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/punishment.htm
Scripture and Church fathers:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.html
Holy Healing:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt5.html
Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm
---
Anointing of the Sick (aka Extreme Unction):
This sacrament is for the seriously ill person. It provides healing of the soul and sometimes healing of the body. The following links provide the description and Scriptural origin. (Unction just means the act of anointing).
Scripture and Church fathers:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/anointing_of_the_sick.html
Holy Healing:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt5.html
Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05716a.htm
---
Matrimony:
Yes, the marriage event is a sacrament. This is the New Covenant fulfillment, transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant "creation ordinance", as Mr Bennett calls it. Christian marriage is a covenant and has God as the bonding agent and helper, providing the grace the man and woman need to have a good marriage. Assuming Christ established a visible, organized Church (which Mr Bennett does not), one can see that the Church would then be the authority to guide Christians in the matters of marriage. Without an authority to pronounce definitively on such matters, Christians will tend to interpret Scripture as they see fit (consciously or not) in order to justify their behavior in their marriage. Honest, sincere Christians often have opposing interpretations of Scripture (in general as well as in marriage matters), despite each claiming to be led be the Spirit in their interpretation. Mr Bennett is just another person claiming the true interpretation. He claims the Catholic Church contradicts Scripture in her teachings and manipulations of her followers' marriages yet gives no examples of un-Scriptural doctrines. The Catholic Church does not base the whole marriage-sacrament doctrine on the one verse found in Eph 5:32. The sacramental nature of marriage is found from the beginning of Scripture (Genesis) to the end (Revelation). Here's Fulton Sheen writing on this sacrament:
The rest of his commentary can be found here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SACRAMEN.TXT
Going on Vocation:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt6.html
Church Fathers on Matrimony:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/marry.htm
Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm
---
Holy Orders:
Christ instituted this sacrament to empower men to perform the priestly duties (such as pastoring the believers, and offering the Covenant Renewal event, aka the Eucharistic meal) He delegated to them. He would depart from Earth to ascend to Heaven in order that he might send his Holy Spirit down to us. Thenceforth the Spirit was available to indwell God's children and guide us, to guide us not just as a non-material entity interfacing directly to our minds & souls, but also (perhaps primarily?) through corporeal means, through men He blesses and empowers with His authority to preach and teach His truths. These men do not replace Christ in His office of High Priest. He is indeed the last and forever and only High Priest. His priesthood is not transferred to men, but instead, He delegates some of his authority and the power to exercise such authority in His name. (Because His body is in Heaven.)
Here's how Fulton Sheen begins his description of this sacrament:
The rest of his writing is at this link, scroll down to "The Sacrament of Holy Orders": http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SACRAMEN.TXT
Scripture teaches us that Christ empowered the Apostles with his grace to preach and to teach and to heal and to forgive sins, all in His name. They commissioned other men as priests ("presbyters") through laying on hands. Since Christ is in Heaven bodily, he provides the grace for men to be His hands and feet on Earth. All Christians are priests, but not in the full sense (ie, not in the pastoral sense). We are priests to the extent that we all have direct access to the Father in Heaven and we are priests in the sense that we can offer our own sacrifices to Him. Only a few men are called to be priests in the fullest, pastoral (ministerial), sense. And it is only they whom God has charged with certain duties (such as dispensing certain sacraments).
The priesthood (especially the papacy) is not a political or legal office, it is a liturgical (public ritual worship) office.
Here is a document demonstrating how the Church is the fulfillment, transformation and perfection of the Davidic Kingdom: http://www.salvationhistory.com/documents/scripture/KingdomChurchInLukeActs.pdf . The Church Christ founded is the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God. Jesus covenanted to the Apostles rulership over this kingdom (Luke 22:29,30). This means they had liturgical, moral, spiritual authority over all Christians. They ordained (by laying on hands) their successors and those successors were called priests (the root word of priest is presbyter) and bishops (greek: episcopos).
Call no Man Father?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/priests_forgive_sins_call_no_man_father.htm
Going on Vocation:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt6.html
Church Fathers on Holy Orders:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/hlyord.htm
Church Fathers on Priesthood and Women (ie Deaconess: Yes; Priestess: No):
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/priest.htm
Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm
------
Other Links:
Fulton Sheen: These are the Sacraments:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SACRAMEN.TXT
Scott Hahn's Lectures on Sacraments:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/Mod5.html
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/01_On_Catholicism/Salvation_and_the_Sacraments.pdf
This article begins by describing his understanding of the concept of "justification". I pointed out his errors on that in my blog entry http://americanberean.blogspot.com/2010/12/salvation-gods-graciousness-in-christ.html.
Now, on to the Sacraments. Mr Bennett believes they are merely rituals of men which blaspheme God by claiming Godly power to dispense grace. But they are more than empty rituals and do convey grace (by God's power, not man's). The catechism describes them as "outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace". I think it was Augustine who called them "visible signs of an invisible reality". As Scott Hahn summarized it: "The sacraments are God's tools for our sanctification. They are not magical and they are not mechanical. They are powerful because Christ is the one who has instituted them because Christ is the sacrament. Christ is the oath that God has sworn for our salvation. "
Here's a good summary of the Sacraments:
http://www.jesuschristsavior.net/Sacraments.html
Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Sacraments:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm.
Here's a summary description of the system of Sacraments:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/sacraments_sacramentals.htm
Scott Hahn lectures on the Sacraments:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/Mod5.html
Mr Bennett doesn't believe the Church of Jesus possesses a world-wide, visible, organized aspect. It's natural, then, that he doesn't accept the idea of God's spiritual grace being distributed through material means. But when one accepts the material aspect of the Church along with the spiritual aspect, sacraments are obviously part and parcel of God's management of His kingdom. Look at Jesus (and ourselves, as well): He possesses material and spiritual aspects. So does His Church and so do the Sacraments. This article describes the visible vs. the invisible Church: http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/vatican_says_protestants_not_churches.htm.
The New Covenant is the fulfillment, transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant included verbal oaths ( greek: orchia; latin: sacramentum) between God and men. Good things were promised for obedience and curses for disobedience. The men (ie Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David) failed to live up to their side of the covenants, thus bringing down curses upon the people of God. But God always promised a redeemer. Eventually, God accepted the curses of disobedience upon Himself by allowing his only begotten son to be tortured and killed despite His innocence. In this way, He redeemed all who call upon His name for salvation. So Jesus Himself is a sacrament (oath); actually THE sacrament from which all the other sacraments get their power.
Even rituals of the Old Covenant can have their perfect New Covenant fulfillment. For example, the Old Covenant Passover finds its fulfillment, transformation and perfection in the ritual instituted at the Last Supper. Here Jesus instituted the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The event was a Passover meal which required, at the end, consuming a sacrificial lamb. There was no baby sheep present in the upper room. Jesus is known as the Lamb of God. Jesus said (to paraphrase) "take this and eat it, this is my body, this is my blood, do this in memory of me", referring to the bread and wine and its consumption. These four points, along with the "bread of life" discourse in John 6, and numerous Old Testament pre-figurements (ie Melchizedek), lead to the inescapable conclusion that the bread and wine became His true flesh and blood (even though it's not detectable to our material senses). Three lectures by Scott Hahn really shed light on the Eucharist (these are each stand-alone, not dependent on each other):
The Lamb's Supper:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/lmbsp.html
The Fourth Cup:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html
The Meal of Melchizedek:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html
John's Gospel is replete with "sacramental" actions. John calls the Jesus' actions "signs". Those actions both symbolized (being visible signs) and caused the transmission of grace to heal. http://www.salvationhistory.com/documents/scripture/04_Hahn_9-12.pdf
---
Baptism:
Mr Bennett states "Faith is so indispensable that though one be baptized yet believes not, he shall be damned. The sinner is condemned because of his sin nature and his personal sin. God’s divine justice is upon him, nothing can propitiate God’s justice but saving faith in Christ."
He's right. And that is what Catholicism teaches. Nothing matters if we have not faith in the first place. But he goes on "This faith by God grace brings instantly God’s act of justification." Yes and No. If we died right then, we'd get in to heaven. But if we continued on in this world but refused to be baptized while knowing we should be, we'd no longer have that justification. Baptism is not a mere act of obedience. It is the New Covenant fulfillment, transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant sign, circumcision. That circumcision has been transformed in to a new ritual which is more than symbol. It brings about true spiritual cleansing. The outward signs of water on the person (whether full immersion or sprinkling) and the invocation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are the cause and indication that God's Sanctifying grace is poured in to that person. The ritual is the cause, not by the ritual's inherent power (which is none, of course), but by the reason that that is how Jesus told us to initiate the believer into the family of God and so He uses that ritual to be the moment He infuses His sanctifying grace into the new family member. Then he is justified, made righteous, due to God's life now in him.
It is because of this true cleansing/regenerating effect that babies are baptized and the stain of the sin of Adam (Original Sin) is removed from them, thus justifying them. They are brought in to God's family by this efficacious ritual. Later in life that child will decide whether or not to remain in God's family.
The New Covenant's Baptism also supercedes John's Baptism. His was a baptism of repentance and the washing in water was just a sign of the person's faith and repentance.
With the coming of Christ the Holy Spirit is now available to indwell all believers. The New Baptism is a sign which is used by God to make us His children. Upon our baptism the spirit indwells us and God declares to the world "This is my son (or daughter)." This can happen to the infant who is baptized even without their having declared Jesus their savior. But for anyone capable of discerning a choice, he must have faith, and believe, for baptism to save him.
Summary of Scriptural and Patristic references to baptism:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html
Scott Hahn on Baptism:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt3.html
Why Baptize Babies?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/infant_baptism.htm
Church Fathers on Infant Baptism:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm
Church Fathers on Born Again:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/borna.htm
Church Fathers on Triune formula, immersion/sprinkling, etc.:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/tribap.htm
Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
---
Confirmation:
When we are old enough to choose our destiny (ie to follow Jesus or not) we are "confirmed" through the laying-on of hands by our bishop. The sacrament results in the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit into us to strengthen us as we grow into young men and women and become more involved in the wide world. We need the extra grace we receive through this sacrament to be effective soldiers of Christ in the spiritual warfare of this fallen world.
Think of this as the Catholic version of the "Altar Call" of the evangelical Christians.
The recipient of this Sacrament publicly proclaims his accepting Jesus by his coming up to the altar where the bishop will lay his hands upon him and anoint him with oil. Sound familiar? Scripture abounds with events of laying on hands and anointing with oil.
Tim Sullivon describes Confirmation, providing the Old and New Testament context for the present doctrine:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/CONFIRM1.HTM
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm
Summary of Scriptural and Patristic references to confirmation:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confirmation.html
Scott Hahn on Confirmation:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt3.html
---
Eucharist:
I described this in a paragraph above, for the purpose of illustrating a reality of the New Covenant. Here are some more supporting links:
Here is a video rebuttal of Mr Bennett on the Eucharist, by gnrhead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUoah7McAvI
Summary of Scriptural and Patristic references:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
Real Presence:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/eucharist.htm
Church Fathers on the Real Presence:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/realp.htm
Church Fathers on Transubstantiation:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/trans.htm
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm
---
Penance (or Reconciliation or Confession):
Christ empowered (indeed, commanded) His ministers to forgive sins in His name (John 20:19-23). James 5:16 tells us to confess our sins to another. Proverbs 28:13 states "He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy." This is all what this sacrament is all about. Jesus gave us this sacrament so a believer who has fallen in to mortal sin can have a means to come back to His family. John mentions mortal sins and venial sins in 1John 5:16-17 "If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly." So, deadly (mortal) sin (which is intentional and serious) separates us from our inheritance, but non-deadly (venial) sin does not.
We are called to confess our sins and ask forgiveness, not just once, at the time of our "salvation moment" when we first call to Jesus to save our soul, but for every sin we commit after that salvation moment. We all are still sinners, some of us to the extent that we evict the Holy Spirit from ourselves (through mortal sin). Proverbs 28:13 is apt here. The non-mortal (venial) sins we commit don't sever our relationship with God, but do harm us spiritually. With unrepented & unconfessed venial sins in our hearts, we are more susceptible to temptation and can sin in progressively more serious ways. It can be a snowball effect, or a slippery slope, with the end result of mortal sin and loss of our inheritance. But by regularly repenting of, and confessing, even our venial sins, we grow in Spirit and become more resistant to temptations thus preventing any potential sin-snowball effect.
Call no Man Father?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/priests_forgive_sins_call_no_man_father.htm
A "Punishing" God?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/punishment.htm
Scripture and Church fathers:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession.html
Holy Healing:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt5.html
Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm
---
Anointing of the Sick (aka Extreme Unction):
This sacrament is for the seriously ill person. It provides healing of the soul and sometimes healing of the body. The following links provide the description and Scriptural origin. (Unction just means the act of anointing).
Scripture and Church fathers:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/anointing_of_the_sick.html
Holy Healing:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt5.html
Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05716a.htm
---
Matrimony:
Yes, the marriage event is a sacrament. This is the New Covenant fulfillment, transformation and perfection of the Old Covenant "creation ordinance", as Mr Bennett calls it. Christian marriage is a covenant and has God as the bonding agent and helper, providing the grace the man and woman need to have a good marriage. Assuming Christ established a visible, organized Church (which Mr Bennett does not), one can see that the Church would then be the authority to guide Christians in the matters of marriage. Without an authority to pronounce definitively on such matters, Christians will tend to interpret Scripture as they see fit (consciously or not) in order to justify their behavior in their marriage. Honest, sincere Christians often have opposing interpretations of Scripture (in general as well as in marriage matters), despite each claiming to be led be the Spirit in their interpretation. Mr Bennett is just another person claiming the true interpretation. He claims the Catholic Church contradicts Scripture in her teachings and manipulations of her followers' marriages yet gives no examples of un-Scriptural doctrines. The Catholic Church does not base the whole marriage-sacrament doctrine on the one verse found in Eph 5:32. The sacramental nature of marriage is found from the beginning of Scripture (Genesis) to the end (Revelation). Here's Fulton Sheen writing on this sacrament:
Marriage: A Symbol of the Nuptials of Christ and the Church Marriage as a sacrament belongs to an entirely different order than the mere union of man and woman through a civil contract. It basically regards a husband and wife as symbols of another marriage; namely, the nuptials of Christ and His Church. The analogy of the heavenly nuptials goes back to the Old Testament, where God appears as the bridegroom, and Israel appears as the bride. When God becomes incarnate in Christ, He called Himself, and was called, the Bridegroom; it is the new Israel, or the Church, which be- comes His bride or His spouse. It is often forgotten that our Blessed Lord called Himself a Bridegroom. When Our Lord was asked why the dis- ciples of John fasted, but His own did not, He answered: "Can you expect the men of the bridegroom's company to go fasting, while the bridegroom is still with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot be expected to fast" (Mark 2:19). John the Baptist called himself "the friend of the bridegroom," or what might be, in modern language, the "best man." The title of Bridegroom, which belonged to Christ, was shared by no other, as John himself said: "The bride is for the bridegroom; but the bridegroom's friend, who stands by and listens to him, rejoices too, rejoices at hearing the bridegroom's voice" (John 3:29). On the other hand, the wife's relationship to the husband is the rela- tionship of the Church to Christ. That is why when St. Paul speaks of marriage he says, "Those words are a high mystery...applying...to Christ and His Church" (Eph. 5:32). The ultimate consummation of this espousal of Christ and His Church will be after the resurrection, when the Church "without spot or wrinkle" will appear as a bride adorned for her husband or as the "spouse of the Lamb" (Apoc 21:2, 9:1, 22:17). The Sacrament of Matrimony is not a pious extra added to the marriage contract; it is rather the elevation of a natural marriage contract to the order of grace, in which the husband loves the wife, as Christ loves the Church, and the wife loves the husband as the Church loves Christ. The husband and wife are not just a symbol of the union of Christ and the Church; they enjoy a real participation in that union. As Christ lives in the Church and the Church in Christ, so the husband lives in the wife and the wife in the husband, and the two are in one flesh.
...
As further evidence of how seriously the Church takes marriage as the symbol of Christ and the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas makes a distinction between a marriage that is merely ratified at the altar, and a marriage that is ratified and consummated, when husband and wife become two in one flesh. The Church has always made this distinction in her Canon Law concerning marriage. A marriage that is merely ratified at the altar, but not consummated, represents the union of Christ with the soul through grace. A marriage ratified at the altar and consummated in the marriage act symbolizes the union of Christ and the Church. The marriage that is ratified only, is a symbol of a personal union of the soul with Christ through grace. This union can be broken by sin. If, therefore, a husband and wife separated immediately after the marriage at the church door, and never consummated their marriage, that marriage would be breakable under certain conditions, because it is only the symbol of the union of the soul and grace. But the marriage bond of a baptized husband and wife which has been consummated is absolutely unbreakable, as the union of Christ and the Church is unbreakable.
The rest of his commentary can be found here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SACRAMEN.TXT
Going on Vocation:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt6.html
Church Fathers on Matrimony:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/marry.htm
Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm
---
Holy Orders:
Christ instituted this sacrament to empower men to perform the priestly duties (such as pastoring the believers, and offering the Covenant Renewal event, aka the Eucharistic meal) He delegated to them. He would depart from Earth to ascend to Heaven in order that he might send his Holy Spirit down to us. Thenceforth the Spirit was available to indwell God's children and guide us, to guide us not just as a non-material entity interfacing directly to our minds & souls, but also (perhaps primarily?) through corporeal means, through men He blesses and empowers with His authority to preach and teach His truths. These men do not replace Christ in His office of High Priest. He is indeed the last and forever and only High Priest. His priesthood is not transferred to men, but instead, He delegates some of his authority and the power to exercise such authority in His name. (Because His body is in Heaven.)
Here's how Fulton Sheen begins his description of this sacrament:
Because man lives in a society of free men, there must be some government and order to make justice prevail. Since there is the order of grace above creature, it too must have degrees, order, hierarchy, and government; this Christ supplied in the Sacrament of Holy Orders with its three ascending levels of deaconship, priesthood, and episcopacy. Our Blessed Lord is the Mediator between God and Man, being both God and man. But in order to meditate His redemption, He desires human instruments between Himself and the world, each of whom will be "the minister and dispenser of the Mysteries of God" (I Corinth. 4:1). And so, some men are appointed by God to deliver the sacraments to others, just as in human societies one group serves and ministers to another: "The purpose for which any high priest is chosen from among his fellow- men, and made a representative of men in their dealings with God, is to offer gifts and sacrifices in expiation of their sins. (Heb. 5:11)
The rest of his writing is at this link, scroll down to "The Sacrament of Holy Orders": http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SACRAMEN.TXT
Scripture teaches us that Christ empowered the Apostles with his grace to preach and to teach and to heal and to forgive sins, all in His name. They commissioned other men as priests ("presbyters") through laying on hands. Since Christ is in Heaven bodily, he provides the grace for men to be His hands and feet on Earth. All Christians are priests, but not in the full sense (ie, not in the pastoral sense). We are priests to the extent that we all have direct access to the Father in Heaven and we are priests in the sense that we can offer our own sacrifices to Him. Only a few men are called to be priests in the fullest, pastoral (ministerial), sense. And it is only they whom God has charged with certain duties (such as dispensing certain sacraments).
The priesthood (especially the papacy) is not a political or legal office, it is a liturgical (public ritual worship) office.
Here is a document demonstrating how the Church is the fulfillment, transformation and perfection of the Davidic Kingdom: http://www.salvationhistory.com/documents/scripture/KingdomChurchInLukeActs.pdf . The Church Christ founded is the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God. Jesus covenanted to the Apostles rulership over this kingdom (Luke 22:29,30). This means they had liturgical, moral, spiritual authority over all Christians. They ordained (by laying on hands) their successors and those successors were called priests (the root word of priest is presbyter) and bishops (greek: episcopos).
Call no Man Father?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/priests_forgive_sins_call_no_man_father.htm
Going on Vocation:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt6.html
Church Fathers on Holy Orders:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/hlyord.htm
Church Fathers on Priesthood and Women (ie Deaconess: Yes; Priestess: No):
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/priest.htm
Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm
------
Other Links:
Fulton Sheen: These are the Sacraments:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SACRAMEN.TXT
Scott Hahn's Lectures on Sacraments:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/Mod5.html
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
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).
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)