DeoOmnisGloria.com

Excellent article. Another point - during the time of Mary and Joseph it wasn't unheard of that a couple would become consecrated virgins even in marriage. I know this is hard to digest in our sex-saturated environment, but it's true.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 5, 2003 08:41 AM

Does this mean, then, that Mary and Joseph never had a real marriage, since they never "became one flesh" (Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:8)? That they could have obtained an annulment at any time, because their betrothal was never consummated? That they would have "denied one another" for more than "a time" (Corinthians 7:5)?

It's a big stretch to re-define marriage in a way that contradicts God the Father, Jesus AND St Paul, even if it was a custom at the time.

Posted by: Russell Taize at November 5, 2003 07:09 PM

I think Russell you miss the point...Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35, Matt 1:21-22) therefore the primary and utterly unique union occurred then. If Joseph had, as you suggested, consecrated his union with Mary, he would have violated this initial union Mary had experience with the Holy Trinity. St. Joseph knew who Mary bore and understood the sacredness of the human temple because God told him. The maritial union of Joseph and Mary was necessary in order to protect Jesus. Keep in mind that Joseph was going to send Mary away quietly (Matt 1:19) until the angel of the Lord came and explained to him what was about to happen. My challenge to you would be to explain how Joseph wouldn't be violating the sacredness of the intimate union of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit if he had proceded to "consecrate their marriage".
And again I will issue the challenge of history...for 2000 years, from the early Church Fathers to the present day, the only Church that dates back to Christ, the Catholic Church, has taught that both Mary and Joseph were virgins throughout the entirety of their marriage. As St. Jerome so clearly stated in 383 A.D.: "You say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a Virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock." (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary [ca. A.D. 383]).

Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 5, 2003 08:56 PM

Joe,

I'd agree with your point IF Christians believed -- as Mormons do believe, and as Muslims falsely claim that Christians believe -- that when we say Jesus is the "Son of God", we mean that God the Father came down from heaven in human form and impregnated Mary through a carnal sexual encounter, like Zeus with Europa. However, of course, that's not what either of us believe. Instead Jesus was conceived, not through sex, but through the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit. The very fact that we all say Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was conceived, until He was born (Protestants) or until she died (Catholic/ Orthodox), attests that we do not believe God in any way "deflowered" her. So if she did later consummate her marriage to Joseph, she would in no way have been guilty of bigamy.

The events St Jerome described were as distant from him as 1620 is to us. It seems more likely that many of the early (and later) Christians emphasised Mary's virginity as an over-reaction to the rumour, widespread among the Jews at the time, that far from being virginally conceived, Jesus was the product of fornication with a Roman soldier. They went beyond emphasising that she was a virgin until his birth to claiming that she was a virgin her entire life -- just as some Christians over-reacted against the militarism of Imperial Rome by espousing not Just War doctrine but utter pacifism, while others over-reacted against paganism's debauchery not by teaching the holiness of the marital bed but by dismissing sex as evil (an attitude that also shows through in some of the Church Fathers' insistence not only that Mary WAS forever a virgin, but that she HAD TO BE). Scripture itself attests that well-meaning disciples invented oral traditions that went beyond anything Jesus ever taught (see John 21:20-23 for a humorous example).

Matthew wrote his Gospel around 64 to 66 AD, which would have been almost 80 years after Mary was born; it is therefore extremely likely that she had departed this earth, one way or another, before he wrote. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to have dispelled all doubt simply by writing "And Mary remained a virgin her entire life" (Matthew 1:23-25). Indeed, if that claim were true it would have given the Christians even more ammunition against the slanders on Mary's virtue, since rather than relying on second-hand testimony that she was a virgin until His birth six decades earlier, they could have had a midwife examine her, perhaps, to testify that she was still a virgin over thirty years after Her Son was publicly crucified. If, say, my uncle had died a bachelor who never married, it would be extremely odd for me to write "My uncle was a bachelor before 1 January 2004".

The Vatican recently admitted that Saints George and Christopher never actually existed, as were once claimed, but were pious legends. Admittedly, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a lot more central to Catholicism than either of those two saints.

Posted by: Russell Taize at November 5, 2003 10:43 PM

Russell,
Why should we simply jump to the conclusion that those writing around the time of Christ's death were liars or simply scribbling down things they did not know? What's interesting is that not one single Christian writer during that time suggested that Mary wasn't a virgin. In addition, the writers of that time often addressed the situation as if it were common knowledge (read the article above).

It's a little silly of us to assume the Christians were so "worried" about their fledgling faith that they felt the need to invent untruths to help sustain it. That would suggest they didn't really believe in the Gospel, which isn't likely to be true since they all were martyred for it.

Why was Mary a perpetual virgin? So she could be dedicated to God as only an unmarried person is (see 1 Cor 7:34-35).

I understand why protestants have a problem with this verse - by adhering to sola scriptura, they miss out on the spoken word passed down through the ages and look for everything in the Bible. They see the Bible as the pillar and foundation of Truth. Unfortunately, 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church the "pillar and bulwark of Truth."

Personally, I would prefer to believe those who lived around the time of Jesus (or for the next 1500 years) than those who live now. Especially since Christ himself promised that the Holy Spirit would guide and guard his Church against the gates of Hell themselves. Call me crazy.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 5, 2003 11:22 PM

Again Russell, I believe you miss the point...it isn't that God "deflowered" Mary by conceiving within her Jesus, but rather it was a unique union within the context of the history of humanity. No other person had ever, nor would ever experience such a union. St. Joseph respected that and understood his role within salvation history. Note also that St. Joseph is not mentioned again after Jesus entered his early adolscent years...his earthly mission was complete.

In reference to St. George and St. Christopher, the Catholic Church has never stated outright that they never existed: "the memorial of Christopher, which entered the Roman Calendar in 1550, is not a part of the ancient Roman tradition. It is now left to particular calendars. Although the Acts of the life of Christopher are legendary, the existence of his cult is very old" (p. 86).
The Church never claims with certainty that St. Christopher was not a "person" simply that all that we have of his history is strictly legendary (meaning without historical documentation), the same applies to St. George.
Quite contrary to this, there is a tremendous amount of historical documentation supporting the perpetual virginity of Mary.
This ultimately, as with any matter of the Christian, or dare I say Catholic, faith, becomes a matter of authority. No other Christian church can trace its origins back to Christ. No Protestant church can trace its history back any earlier than 1517 A.D. So why would Catholics writers, prior to the existence of any Protestant church be stating, matter-of-factly, that Mary was a Virgin even after the birth of Jesus? I have provided multiple historical documents supporting this and would be happy to provide more. I'm curious...do you have any documentation supporting your case. Referring to the Bible will not do, since I have to a greater extent shown that Sacred Scripture supports the fact that Mary had no other children. Please refer back to the article for the mutliple Sriptural references.

I would also like to comment on this line from your comment: "Scripture itself attests that well-meaning disciples invented oral traditions that went beyond anything Jesus ever taught (see John 21:20-23 for a humorous example)." Protestantism is the perfect example of this. With over 20,000 denominations teaching multiple doctrines (By Scripture Alone and By Faith Alone are two prime examples), I for one am thankful to belong to the Church that both doctrinally and historically was founded by Jesus Christ and remains constant in proclaiming the Truth of the Gospel and has both compiled and safeguarded Sacred Scripture and its geniune interpretation.

Posted by: Joe at November 6, 2003 12:11 AM

I also wanted to comment on the reason for St. Matthew not clarifying that Mary was a virgin after Jesus' birth. Since you referred to the historical fact that Matthew wrote his Gospel around 64 to 66 A.D., I would like to clarify who he was writing to. St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, indicating that he was writing to the Jews primarily. Reading the Gospel of Matthew this becomes obviously clear. The very fact that he listed the genealogy of Jesus shows that he was wanting to establish the fact that Jesus was the heir of David. That would not have meant much to the Gentiles since most of them did not recognize the kingship of David's heirs.

So why would Matthew find it necessary to state that "but knew her not until she had borne a son; and called his name Jesus" (Matthew 1:25)? Matthew wanted to make clear that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus.

St. John Chrysostom, another early Church Father, wrote in the year 370 A.D. in reference to St. Joseph: "Christ's conception was the work of the Holy Spirit, but do not think this divine economy has nothing to do with you. For although it is true that you had no part in the generation of Christ, and that the Virgin remained inviolate, nevertheless, what pertains to a father (not injuring the honour of virginity) that do I give you - naming of the child. For 'you shall call his name.' Although you have not generated him, you will act as a father to him. Hence it is that, beginning with giving him his name, I associate you intimately with the one who is to be born" (Homily on St. Matthew, 4).

The very reason Matthew more than likely did not state the obvious - that Mary was always a virgin - was that it was obvious to all those he wrote to since they had lived so closely to the events of Jesus' life. St. Matthew was not writing his Gospel to document the life of Mary rather the life of Jesus.

Also, the use of the word "until" does not necessarily direct our attention to what happens afterwards. In both Hebrew and Greek the word used simply points out what has happened up to that moment, in this case, the virginal conception of Jesus Christ by a unique intervention of God. Consequently, the word is used also in the Gospel of John (John 9:18) where the Pharisees did not believe in the miraculous cure of the man blind fom birth "until" they called his parents. However, once the parents came and explained that the man had been born blind, the Pharisees still did not believe. So the use of the word "until" does not necessarily mean that something has to occur afterwards. The Pharisees did not believe after the parents came to speak to them, nor did Joseph have relations with Mary after the birth of Christ.

At the Annunciation, Mary told the angel Gabriel, "How can that be, since I have no knowledge of man?" (Lk 1:34). Many of the early interpretations of this passage of Sacred Scripture, by the Church Fathers, point to this as indicating that Mary had committed herself to a lifelong vow of virginity. Gabriel is telling her she will conceive as in future reference. Mary doesn't say "of course I will, didn't you know I'm about to get married to Joseph and we plan on having children," no she asks how this could be. Think about it...

Again, the perpetual virginity of Mary has been the teaching of the Catholic Church down through the ages. Catholics have hundreds of historical documents and traditions to support this. What proofs are there to support the Protestant position?

Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 6, 2003 11:51 AM

In the book,"Catholic and Christian" byAlan Schreck on pages 173-175 there is a well written article,"Special Beliefs about Mary". One particular teaching,"Mary As Ever-Virgin" starts by stating "Most Chritians believe that Mary was a virgin before and at the time of the birth of her son Jesus{see Mt 1:18-25;Lk 1:26-27}.Yet Catholics also believe that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life.Why doCatholics believe this?" The belief is very ancient and proclaimed by some of the most illustrious Christians of all time: Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine and others.In " Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary" by Michael O'Carroll on pages 357-361 there is revealed that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldreich Zwingli affirmed their belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. After addressing the question,"Were all these great Christians unaware of what the Bible teaches on this subject? Certainly not." Alan Schreck states the following: "Indeed,leading Catholic and Protestant scholars agree that the New Testament does not give conclusive evidence either for or against the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity."

Posted by: Carroll at November 11, 2003 11:01 PM

Then where does this teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary come from? And why did the early Christians believe it to be the case? What is your belief on this matter and what supports this belief?

Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 12, 2003 09:42 PM

Mary had other children. They were not conceived like Christ. The Bible clearly mentions them as Jesus' brothers. Unless you make the word brothers really mean cousins, then you can make a case. But that would be spinning the Bible.

Posted by: Marc at November 27, 2003 08:41 PM

Marc,
Did you even read the article? No one argues that "brothers" was a different word from "cousins" in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or any of the other languages spoken at that time - it's the same word. And explain why, at His Crucifixion, Jesus handed Mary over to John (the Beloved Disciple) if he had brothers - it would be against everything the Jews believed in!

It's funny, for 1,500 years everyone agreed that Jesus was an only child. The Bible strongly implies that Mary and Joseph both had taken a vow of chastity that would have been kept even if Christ had not been born (it wasn't unheard of at the time - sex wasn't the meaning of life). And yet, a lack of understanding has created this belief that Mary and Joseph had other children. The ignorance of Scripture and history amazes me.

Maybe you should read the article again.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 27, 2003 10:28 PM

Oh, and "spinning the Bible" would be suggesting that works are unnecessary to Salvation.

Posted by: Jay at November 27, 2003 10:29 PM

Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
Until she gave birth...not forever.

Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Point 1- Just like there are 2 Mary's int he Bible, there is more than one Judas too. Second it didn't mention Peter. You see, CHrists own brothers didn't accept Him as savior. So they couldn't be His brethren in Spirit. Also they refered to Joeseph and Mary the couple. So why if referring to Christs mother and father would one assume that brothers means cousins? Aldelphos is greek for brothers, suggenes is greek for cousins. It was not his cousins, and not his brethren in spirit for they did not believe in him.
In Mathew 1:24 - 25 we read "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her NOT till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." The word knew means sexual relations. So this means that Don't have sex with her until Jesus is born. It doesn't say Joeseph would never "know" her. Its says until he knew her. CLear as day. Second, why does one need a savior? Answer this for me and I will respond in my next post.
God Bless
Marc

Posted by: Marc at November 28, 2003 10:04 AM

Marc,

All of the objections you raise have been addressed in the comments above in reference to the use of the word "until" and in reference to the brethren of the Lord. I suggest rereading those. Also, how do you explain the common belief in Mary's virginity by the early Church Fathers and the Church. We only find rejection of this teaching 1500 years later by the founders of Protestantism, in terms of organized religion.

Man was in need of a Savior because he could not free himself from the pangs of death and the bonds of sin. Does this mean that man cannot remain in the bondage of sin once he is baptized? Certainly not, as I stated before both St. Paul and St. Peter speak of working out our salvation in fear and trembling lest we lose what we have gained. Jesus is our Savior. He removed the pangs of death and the bonds of sin. It is now up to us to act upon the grace of God,to accept the path Christ has shown us, to continually be open to His grace in order to live the life Christ calls us to, and to remain on the path that leads to heaven. As with any gift, grace can be rejected...as can truth.

So now answer the question...where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the sole source of Truth? Or even remotely support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Have you read Jay's article on Sola Scriptura or the one I posted today entitled "A Letter from a Convert"? Marc we just want you to arrive at the same revelation that so many converts to Catholicism have in the past and are still arriving at today...the Protestant doctrine of "the Bible alone" is not biblical at all. Authority is found in the Church, "the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Your brother in Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at November 28, 2003 11:53 AM

What does the until or till mean? It means up to a certain point. What a lot of Converts to Protestants have realized is that no matter how you slice...2+2=4. You make the word Until mean something else. Mary is also mentioned as the mother of Joses. But the bottom line is this...The Bible which catholics believe is God's word...says that all have sinned. ALL...ALL...that means everyone, including MAry. So unless you change the meaning of ALL and UNTIL....then MAry is a virgin and without sin. Mary is an example of a true servant to God, she was courageous and obedient to the master. So if the Bible says one thing....and something comes against it or contradicts that. The contradictory statement is not of GOd...for God is not the author of confusion. If other sources were consistent with the Bible, I can see how you can support your point of view. However with all due respect there is a lot of contradiction between the Bible and Catholic Doctrine. ALso, yes Episcopalians are wrong..but that doesn't go for all Protestants. That would be like saying that all Catholic preists molest altar boys. That is untrue. In finalizing my point, true...it does not say verbatim that the Bible is the only source of God's word. But that leaves an argument for Hinduism and Islamic beliefs. As we are Christians we follow Christ. ALl Christ ever referred to is found in the Bible. Christ never referred to Mary being a virgin, or to purgatory...I have given you scripture to look at that dismisses purgatory to look at. So unless you turn your eye away from the Bible, then you will not see how the Bible is the ultimate authority of God's word. If a church, a book or anything says otherwise...than it is not of GOD.
God Bless

Marc

Posted by: Marc at November 28, 2003 12:33 PM

Marc,
It interesting that you take some verses very literally and others (that you don't like) figuratively. Just because Mary was a virgin until Jesus' birth doesn't mean she wasn't one afterwards. When I say, "Everyone believed this until after Luther (he believed it himself)." I don't mean, every single person. I mean in general, which is the way the Bible meant it.

Now, I think we've had a breakthrough. You said, "true . . . it does not say verbatim that the Bible is the only source of God's word." Which is correct. But it does say that Christ built a Church "and the powers of death shall not prevail against it" (Matt 16:18). And it does say the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15). And Jesus did give the disciples (we'll call them Bishops) "the keys to the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt 16:19). Luckily God gave us more than the Bible (which is a tremendous gift in itself), He created a Church that is responsible for the Truth and that He (Jesus) is the head of - the Pope is simply the figurehead on earth. This is why we can trust in the Church, we know Jesus is controlling it. Individual members may do evil things, but they will never change doctrine. Think about this: there have been Popes that died on the way to change a key element in the Church's teaching. We can always trust in God to keep His Church on the right path. This is why we can trust the Church and why Paul can call it "the pillar and bulwark of Truth."

Think about it.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at November 28, 2003 11:57 PM

Marc,

I noticed you have a good point on the word "until". That is, it seems like a good point until (ha!) we do our homework. You have to understand that unlike English, the Greek and Semitic usage of the word ‘until’ does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this verse it simply emphasizes that she was indeed a virgin at the time Jesus was born. Another good example of this is Mt 28:20 “I am with you always, until the end of the world.” Does this mean Jesus will leave us after the end of the world? Of course not. It emphasizes the fact that Jesus will always be with us. There is no hard evidence or Bible verse that proves either side of the "Mary's perpetual virginity" argument. But since Mary was the new Ark of the Covenant which carried God in the flesh, this is a very important issue. And that is why Jesus instituted a Church (you have to wonder why He didn't write anything down) that will be with us always, and guide us to the fullness of Truth!

I hope that helps.

Pax et bonum,
Danny

Posted by: Danny at December 1, 2003 10:14 PM

Here's another good article analyzing the issue of Mary's virginity.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at December 11, 2003 05:53 PM

Hello
I just wanted you to know how much I enjoyed this website. I teach C.C.D.and the seventh graders have asked me about the Virginity of Mary and your site has answered many of my questions and I can tell the children and share the scripture where they can find all the information
Thanks

Posted by: Carole Biwen at December 23, 2003 12:13 AM

I think I may be a little late in responding to Mary's "perpetual virginity", but I think that some of you are missing the real point. Jesus is the point. All of the Old Testament pointed towards Jesus; not to Peter, Paul, or Mary. The prophets and Moses(prophecy and the law) pointed to the coming of our(Jew/Gentile) Messiah. The New Testament points to Jesus. It's all about JESUS not anyone else. God never calls us to have any other mediator between Himself and men other than Jesus the Christ. No one else is the object of His written Word. The scripture is divinely inspired.
I recently attended the Rosary/Funeral of my uncle. He was a Roman Catholic as most of you can guess by the "Rosary". In the beginning of the Rosary, I agreed with what the deacon was speaking. About halfway through the rosary, he began mentioning things that began to curl the hair on the back of my neck. He asked all those present to pray that my uncle would be in Heaven. And if he was in pergatory, we should pray him from there and into heaven. This notion of pergatory denies the sufficiency of Christ's death and attonement of our sins on the cross. Christ's last words were "It is finished!" He paid for all of our sins; past, present, and future on the cross. Every single last one was paid for. Once you choose Christ Jesus as your savior, you are free indeed. There is no need for saving works. We can see this clearly by the conversation between Jesus and the thief on the cross. The thief was an evil man. The crimes he comitted condemned him to death on the cross. He had no time for the sacraments, no time to get the last rites from a priest, no time to perform ANY "good" works. He had no time to do anything other than make the most important decision of his life. On the cross, he chose Jesus Christ. Luke 23:42-43 "And he was saying "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." This as someone might say is not a special and singular act of grace that was afforded to the thief because he was speaking directly to God himself, but this is a true example of what a man/woman must do to enter into God's Kingdom. This man believed Jesus in faith and it was counted onto him as rightous.
The other thing that shocked me was when the deacon began saying good things of Jesus. (an example being Jesus the Christ the Son of God, holy is He.) The deacon spent about 1minute gloryfying Jesus. Then he began a speach that glorified Mary that lasted about 5min. God getting 1 minute of glory, while Mary gets 5 minutes, does anyone think this sounds right? I sure don't. There is only 1 God. One God who gets all the glory! ALL!! God will not share his glory with anyone. God does not call us to pray to anyone else other than Himself! There is only ONE mediator between God and man. I know I repeated myself, but, I feel it's very important everyone understand this point. If you want to understand this principle, read the book of Hebrews. It clearly points to this. Mary is not God. She never claimed to be. We are never commanded in scripture to pray to Mary and ask for her to intercede for us. She is part of the great cloud of witnesses that Hebrews speaks of. There is only ONE who can hear your prayers. Only ONE who can answer your prayers. Only ONE who Loves you so much that neither "death, nor life, nor angels, nor pricipalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in CHRIST JESUS our LORD." It's all about Him and not us. And Mary is one of us and not Him. Focusing on her is something that if she were here, would be something that she would strongly be against. Her son was her Lord. She was His servant.
Lastly I would like to say that as far as tradition goes, Jesus was against them. If you have any doubt, look at how Jesus spoke to the pharisees and scribes, Matt 15:8 "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me. But in VAIN do the worship me, teaching as DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN." How many time did Christ condemn the so called rightous men of God for focusing on their own traditions rather than what the Word of God said. Tradition are made of men, while the Word of God is of God. Tradition that comes into direct contradiction to the Word of God should be expunged from the Church. If you make the claim that the early church fathers spoke with God's voice, then what about the Mormon John Smith or the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses. They both claimed special divine revelation. They claim to have extra-biblical knowledge. They do NOT believe in Sola-Scriptura. How do they differ from the Roman Catholic view of holding to the words of the "early church fathers". If that's the case also, what about the gnostic gospels. Are they true? The Word of God from Gen 1:1 to Rev 22:21 is the only true revelation from God. Anything else is something that is added to or taken from the Word of God which He Himself condemns. I write this all in love. May God richly bless you with His wisdom.

Posted by: Peter at January 10, 2004 06:58 PM

I was just reading the book "Why Do Catholics Do That?" by Kevin Orlin Johnson, and he had this to say...well, about the virginity of Joseph anyway...
In the Protevangelion you can also read about the prestentation of the Virgin, another episode that you won't find in the Bible. It's still commemorated by the Church with a feast on Nov. 21. Joachim and Ann (Mary's parents), dedicating their daughter to the Lord, took her to the Temple when sh was three years old so that she could live free from the corruptions of everyday life. The Protevangelion says that later, when Mary was of marriageable age, the priests consulted about her future. An angel told the High Priest to gather the walking-sticks of all the widowers in Israel and bring them to the Temple. Joseph's walking stick burst into flower, just as Aaron's staff did in Num 17:16-25, signalling tht he was the one...when the widower Joseph was selected by his blooming staff and the dove that "came forth and flew to his head", he said, "I am an old man and have sons; why do you entrust this young girl to me?" - which puts an interesting spin on Mt 12:46, Mk 6:3, and John 7:5.

Posted by: Janey at January 10, 2004 09:52 PM

Here's my answer Peter... The Bible is part of that living Tradition in the Catholic Church.

What do you suppose the early Church Fathers did? We know that many of them only had a couple letters from the apostles to follow, some had copies of one or two of the gospels. It is proof enough that God intented to safeguard His teachings through the Church that He never wrote anything down Himself and that He selected apostles who in turn would select others. What so many of the Protestants who visit and post on this blog continually ignore is the fact that the Bible as we know it today didn't even exist until around the year 392 A.D. Another fact that you fail to take into consideration is illiteracy, most of the world couldn't read at the time, nor for all the other centuries even to our current century. So if Sola Scriptura is valid how were they expected to know Christ?

The Catholic Faith is true, it is logical, it is historical, it has been founded by Christ Himself.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at January 11, 2004 09:30 AM

Peter,
One of the functions of this website is to explain the simple fact that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible and the Bible does not ever contradict Catholic teaching. Now your personal interpretation of the Bible may contradict Catholic teaching, but the Catholic Church has the assurance from God that She is the "pillar and foundation of Truth," not the Bible (1 Tim 3:15).

Look around the site, I think you'll begin to understand that purgatory, veneration (NOT WORSHIP) of Mary, and the priesthood are all Biblical.

In fact, I think it is clear that protestant churches follow the doctrines of men. You are trusting in a man, Martin Luther, to decide which books of the Bible are infallible and which aren't (most prostants don't even realize he removed books). You are trusting in your local pastor to interpret the Bible for you. I say this since the Bible is clear in Acts 8:30-31 that we all need someone to help us interpret it (notice that the man didn't say, "No, the Holy Spirit is helping me").

I recommend you start with our article on Sola Scriptura, the Bible Alone. The one fundamental problem protestants have is that they repeatedly suggest they can interpret the Bible with no help; an error of pride.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at January 11, 2004 12:10 PM

Just a question Jay,
How do you know exactly that the catholic church wrote the Bible? If it says exactly in the Bible that the catholics wrote it please let me know. Also, everyone needs the help of the Holy Spirit to understand some things in the Bible. Sometimes God leads you to a person that explains it but the Holy Spirit is the one who is talking through him. You also need to know that Mary is not the one who we can speak through to God. Jesus is the one who speaks to God for us. Also, I do not believe that the catholic church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." I believe that the Bible is. Purgatory is not Biblical at all! It never says in the Bible that before we go to Heaven that we have to spend a little time in Hell. It says "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord then you will be saved." You have to believe that Jesus is the lifeline between us and God. The Bible also says that when you die you will be judged by God, and if your name is not in the Lamb's Book Of Life then God will say to you, "Depart from me, I never knew you." then you will go to Hell. It does not matter if you do a whole bunch of good things. What matters is that you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and then do what He tells you to do. I just wanted to show you the truth about what the Bible really says.

Love always in Christ,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at February 8, 2004 07:01 PM

Mary,
There's a lot of error in your post, but I'll just address some of it.

First, a famous convert to Catholicism once said that to understand history is to cease to be protestant. We know the Bible was written by Catholics because that's a historical fact. I suggest you look back in time: there was no protestant churches when the Bible was written. The Catholic church also defined which books are included in the Bible and which are not. Only 1,500 years later, Martin Luther revolted from God's church and removed seven books (plus some of other books) from the Bible and added a word (the only person to add or subtract from the Bible). This is why your Bible doesn't discuss purgatory (which is not hell): Martin Luther didn't like purgatory so he removed the books that explicitly discussed it. However, there are still references to purgatory in the Bible. This article explains where the Bible discusses purgatory.

A couple other issues: Catholics do not require you to "go through Mary" at all. However, Catholics do suggest that it is wise to ask Mary to pray for you. You often ask your friends to pray for you, why wouldn't you ask the mother of God to pray for you as well? Next, the Bible also says that if you do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, you have no life in you (John 6:53). And it says that faith without works cannot save you (James 2:14). Also the Bible says not everyone who says "Lord, Lord, will be saved" (which seems to be what you suggest). You can't just try and interpret one verse, you must interpret the Bible as a whole, together, as only the Catholic Church does.

Finally, you say that you do not believe that the Catholic church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Well, that means you think the Bible has error in it. That is a direct quote from 1 Tim 3:15. The Bible makes this claim, not me.

Mary, it sounds like you are the one who doesn't know your Bible very well. I ask you the same question I ask all protestant who suggest I am wrong, "Where does the Bible teach that it alone is the source of truth (sola scriptura)?" This is the foundation of your beliefs and, yet, it is unbiblical. I can show you where the Bible teaches that the Church is the foundation of truth, I'm waiting for one prostant to show me where the Bible teaches sola scriptura. They can't, because it doesn't.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 8, 2004 08:42 PM

Mary,

Before making comments like the one you've made above I would ask that you read through the various other articles on this blog. All of these questions and objections have been addressed directly and effectively under other posts. Out of a desire to share the truth with you I will address some of your issues here.

1) We know that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible because there is historical documentation and evidence that this was the case.

2) The teachings of the Catholic Church are supported by Sacred Scripture but also by the living Tradition of the Church that is evident in the writings of the Early Church Fathers and down through the ages. Those writings are available at most public libraries and can be found online as well.

3) The Bible itself does not teach that the Bible is the "pillar and bulwark of truth". So if you claim that the Bible is the foundation of your faith, you are making a biblical mistake for the Bible never claims as much.

4) Lastly, for you to say that "it doesn't matter if you do a bunch of good things. What matters is that you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and then do what He tells you" is a contradiction in itself and proof of your need to read the Bible a little more thoroughly, I would start with John 3. John directly ties faith and works here. Then I would read the epistle of James as well as the book of Romans, then the rest. The entire New Testament supports the doctrine of faith working through love, faith and works, the two are inseparable.

Understand that I say all of these things in charity and in the hope that this blog will be a new beginning for you. Read through these articles, and may they help you to see the wisdom and truth that can only be found in the Catholic Church.

May God bless you and may our Mother Mary always lead you closer to her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at February 8, 2004 09:04 PM

Mary, I just want you to know that I am praying for you tonight. God does promise that the truth shall set us free and it will! Learn the truth, you owe it to yourself and you deserve the truth! I think Jay and Joe thoroughly answered your misconceptions. They aren't trying to spread their own philosophy, they are spreading the word of God. I pray you take the time to read the articles they've pointed out to you, these facts will pave the way to truth for you and for all. I pray you follow that path!

In Christ's love, Krista

Posted by: Krista at February 8, 2004 11:09 PM

Mary,

Just to add one more voice to this chorus, I really urge you to consider delving deeper into the mystery of the Catholic faith. Many of us who write articles here were once like you. Opposed to the Catholic Church, which we viewed as steeped in superstition and idolatry. At some point, however, we decided to look at this Church that preceded every other Christian denomination.

For me, I researched the Truth with a critical mind and a cautious eye. For four years I read more and more. History, doctrine, early writings from the saints of old. When I finally came to accept the Truth, one of my Catholic friends told me something that shattered my ego. He said, "Dave, about two years ago I became so desparate that all of your research was going to be fruitless. At that point, my family and I began praying for you every night that the Holy Spirit would open your eyes." After studying so I hard and coming to the Truth, I finally recognized that my heart was not transformed by doctrine or teachings, but by the leading of the Holy Spirit, so that I might not boast!

I will pray for you today that you will begin searching out the Faith. But more importantly, I will pray that the Holy Spirit will open not only your mind, but your heart to the fullness of the Gospel that is contained in the living, breathing, active Body of Christ, the Catholic Church! May God bless you abundantly.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at February 9, 2004 01:09 PM

I am truly amazed at this site. I find it intersting that we fight each other and polish our armor. Being raised Catholic with a Strong Italian and Polish background, it was always part of a family tradition to attend mass and observe the holy days. But that was exactly it..."Tradition" While it is good to have this, it does nothing to bring an individual to a "Personal relationship" with God. It just familiarizes you "about Him". I have always wondered how often we cause more separation than encouragement in our so called "witnessing". And while God does offer us salvation under one name, that name being "Jesus", it is nothing without our realization of the grace God poured out at Calvary for all sinners. Not for someone who was already without sin, but of course, scripture is clear that "all have sinned, and we all fall short of the glory of God." Namely me. Knowing this now however, does spur me onto "good works" James is quite right, "Faith without works IS dead". It seems that at times we can get caught up in our good works, sometimes we think that because of "our" works it brings us close to God. This can be a snare of pride, the earliest of sins exposed, this of course is what caused Lucifer to desire to exalt himself above the "Most High", this was just before he fell like a rock. We should be cautious to see that we walk humbly in our faith, fearing God. Working out our salvation with fear and trembling. I am convinced that we all have "Opinions". God certainly made us in His, or should I say "Our" image. ("Our" defined as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) With that being said we do have the ability to comprehend and reason, even if we cannot read.( I say that for those of you who think that prior to the scripture being written down we were as smart as a box of rocks). It wasn't until someone spoke the "Good News" to me that I had ever thought that I was not in God's favor. I had always thought that because of all the works I had done, and all the traditions I upheld, I was in right standing with God. God's word however says that there is NONE righteous...No not even one. We all look as dirty rags to God. But until someone had spoke the "Good News" to me I never realy knew it for sure, and that it was for me to have. It was always a "foggy" answer. Thus the reason for Purgatory. At least that's what I thought at that time. As a child I thought like a child, but as you seek the answers in God's amazing word, which I can read with my own eyes, and comprehend with my own "God given" understanding, it became known to even me. My question was not whether I was doing the right things, or upholding traditions, but more so positionally..."Where did I stand with Him?" Scripture is clear we are to die once and face judgement, I wondered when that would happen, what would be my fate? I really never was taught this in any CCD, by any Nun (there were many) or priestly sermon from any Catholic lecturn, Homily...nothing. I don't think anyone really knew. I think they just kind of hoped that God would be "kind" enough to me, or God would be convinced enough, by me asking all the saints and Mary even to somehow persuade God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit to let me in to Heaven, because...."eehhh he's really not that bad of a guy". It wasn't until someone who had experienced the "Freedom" from sin in their own life was able to come along side of me and say: "Did you know that YOU CAN KNOW, that if you died today that you would be heaven with God? And it wasn't until that kind person helping me along to back up this claim of "Good News" with Scripture verses, verse by verse did I know for sure, that when ever I die now, I will be with God, in heaven. Jesus Christ is Lord God Almighty, He is the Alpha and the Omega, that's Greek for the Begining and the End, He is the Author and the FINISHER of our FAITH. It is His redeeming "work" at Calvary that brings us into right standing with God the Father. Not our work. His work, God's plan for us...before we even cared about Him. God loved us first...not after we did a few "works" but first, that He sent His only Son to die in our stead, so that we may be forgiven, from the original sin of the First Adam, to be bought with a price by Christ the second Adam. This is so we can be "set free" Christ came to set the captives free. He sure did! And that my friend is the "Good News" that it is for all people, not just the Jews. Of course to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile. I'm glad I'm a Gentile. This our Great Commission, that Matthew writes about, it is our job to do this...Preach the "Good News" Make Disciples among men. Not whether or not Jesus had or didn't have Brothers or Sisters, or was Mary forever a virgin. How does that bring you into the light? How does that bring you into a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? How does arguing these points draw you closer into the fellowship of believers? Somethings you can draw a line on, some you need not. These are some of those issues.

Posted by: Vince at February 21, 2004 03:19 AM

I totally agree with James. I read 1 Timothy 3-15 over and over and I see no evidence that the Catholic Church in general wrote the Bible! Please give me direct biblical quotes that the Catholic Church is the "pillar and bulwark" of the bible.

Second from Genesis to Revelation the bible is truly about Man's fall from glory into sin, to having a savior "Jesus the Christ" to spreading "God's" word until the end of time. Mary is NOT included in this other than the mother who bore Jesus. Other than that she is no more holy than you and I. Therefore praying unto her as a mediator is invalid and a waste of time.

The bible says Jesus is the mediator (1 Tim 2:5-6) between God and men, not Mary, Joseph, Moses, or Noah! Why waste time and jump through hoops and pray to someone else when you can pray right the the source?

Posted by: James at March 8, 2004 02:54 PM

James,

Have you ever asked someone to pray for you? The books of James and I Peter tell us that the prayers of a righteous person are powerful; do you disagree?

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at March 8, 2004 04:08 PM

James,
The Catholic Church was the only Church in existence when the New Testament was written. We have article after article on this site showing the Catholicity of the Bible, but you can also look at the other writings of that time period. There were numerous writings composed during the same time the books of the New Testament were written - they all agree that there was only one Church: the Catholic Church.

The next Church in existence (1,000 years later) was the Orthodox Church. No protestant church existed until Martin Luther revolted - almost 1,500 years after the Crucifixion.

Asking Mary and/or the Saints for help is not a requirement. It is not necessary for you to attain heaven, just as asking others to pray for you is not necessary. However, it does have value. As Dave pointed out, the Bible clearly indicates that the prayers of a righteous person are more powerful. Who could be more righteous than someone already in heaven?

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 8, 2004 04:28 PM

Vince,
Often people have inherent biases against the Catholic Church, just as they had against Christ while He walked the earth (and even until now!). For example, someone seeking God may have this false belief in his mind that Jesus had brothers and sisters. So this person automatically assumes the Catholic Church as a whole is incorrect because of this. Therefore, some of the smaller issues must be addressed before we can move on to the bigger issues.

The bigger issues include our need for the Eucharist (see John 6:46 and following). Our need for the Church Jesus Himself established (see Matthew 16:18). It is only through the Catholic Church that we are able to get the Sacraments that help us get to heaven. But we learned early on with this site that you must address prior convictions, no matter how small, before moving on.

I recommend you read this article on purgatory and the Bible. It clearly shows that Purgatory is Biblical. What is not Biblical is the notion of "once saved, always saved" that many Christians have. In the Bible we learn that we must finish the race and not fall away at the end, if we are to attain heaven.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 8, 2004 04:39 PM

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

Also if the Bible is made by Catholics why does the Bible preach against its teachings?
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

Posted by: James at March 9, 2004 07:37 AM

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

Also if the Bible is made by Catholics why does the Bible preach against its teachings?
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

Posted by: James at March 9, 2004 07:37 AM

James,
I took your post and answered it in detail at: Answering protestant objections.

Here is what I posted:

There’s a ton of common protestant misunderstandings about Catholics and interpretation of the Bible from a Catholic perspective. Yesterday, we had a post that seemed to encapsulate a common series of protestant misunderstandings, so I thought I would turn it into an article and answer the issues James proposed. I’ve put his initial comments in blockquotes (below) and his questions are bold. Now, I do know that this is plagiarized from Bible.ca, but I’ll assume that James was the original writer. I linked to our other articles where appropriate. Here’s where James began (he was responding to another post on the article The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: Did Mary have other Children?

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

I’ll address this first paragraph point by point.

• First, it’s important to understand that during the time the Bible was written and compiled (from about 60 A.D. until compilation in 397 A.D.), there was only one Christian Church. The Biblical writers didn’t feel the need to prove the protestant position incorrect – there were no protestant churches!
  
• However, there is a clear Church hierarchy. Read this article clearly showing that the Bible teaches that Peter was the first Pope. We have bishops or episkopos (Acts 1:20, Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25), elders or presbyteros (Acts 15:2-6; Acts 21:18; Hebrews 11:2; 1 Peter 5:1; 1 Timothy 5:17), and deacons or diakonos (1 Corinthians 3:5; Philippians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8-13).
  
• Confession is clear in John 20:22-23 (they must hear the sins to forgive them, right?) and we are told to do it in James 5:16.
  
• Indulgences are often misunderstood by protestants. They are simply a remission of the temporal punishment one is due because of sins that have already been forgiven. The first Biblical indulgence is in 2 Corinthians 2:5-11. Paul does not call the man to repent, since the man has already been forgiven; rather Paul removes some of the temporal punishment the man is due for the sin that is already forgiven. Priests were given the power to forgive sins in John 20:22-23, so they also have the power to grant indulgences.
  
• Prayers to the saints are simple: we ask our friends to pray for us and the Bible clearly indicates that the prayers of the holy are powerful (James 5:16), so is anyone on earth more holy than those in heaven? It’s silly to suggest this is bad. Prayer for the dead is included in the Bible, but a man (Martin Luther) removed those books from your version of the Bible (example 2 Maccabees) as well as added a word, which to me is heretical, but you accept as perfectly okay.
  
• As far as Marian adoration goes, Luke 1:48 says “all” generations will call her blessed, this is something only Catholics do at this point (so we are the only ones obeying Scripture!).
  
• Relics are very Biblical – I’m surprised protestants can ignore them. For example:
  

  
  Acts 19:11-12. And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.
  

  
  This is the use of a relic in the Bible. There are several other instances as well, see 2 Kings 13:20-21, Matthew 9:20-22, and Acts 5:15-16.
  
• “Many other rites and ceremonies” – please point them out and I’ll show you the Biblical references.
  

The Bible is clearly Catholic. Obviously, I could go far more into each of these subjects, but I’m just pointing out that every assumption made in this post is incorrect. If you want more information on a topic, let me know and I’ll write an article on it. Now for the other issues.

Also if the Bible is made by Catholics why does the Bible preach against its teachings?

It doesn’t. The Bible was written by Catholics and compiled by the Catholic Church as well as protected by it for 1,500 years (if it weren’t for diligent monks during the dark ages, the Bible wouldn’t have been around to be printed today). In fact, the Bible is inherently Catholic. Here are the points James makes:

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
This is actually comical. To derive this conclusion from this Scripture, you must completely ignore the point made here. I urge everyone to take a second and read the verses. This is not condemning the dress, but rather those who ignore the teachings while pretending to be holy. It almost requires intentional ignorance to read this into these verses.

2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
Here we are expected to ignore the other verses pertaining to Mary (Luke 1:48) and assume this is a proper understanding of the verse. Again, this conclusion is absolutely silly – Jesus is trying to make a spiritual point, He is not saying we should ignore Mary, otherwise Jesus would be contradicting earlier Scripture. I think you should re-evaluate any personal interpretation that is contradicted by Scripture. Remember, the prayers of the holy are powerful (James 5:16), and I think we can be sure that Mary (the New Ark of the Covenant) is holy and in heaven. Don’t be scared of her – she always points us to Jesus. Read this article on the Biblical Mary for more information.

3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
Because they are. But this doesn’t mean a liturgical priesthood isn’t also valid. Remember the Old Testament? There was a Levitical priesthood as well as the priesthood of the laity. I proved above that the Bible clearly denotes a hierarchy among the Church.

4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
This betrays a terrible understanding of Scripture. This verse condemns astrology, not holy days. According to your interpretation, we shouldn’t celebrate Easter or Christmas, since they are “special” days. Let’s be realistic about this.

5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
Because all living Christians are part of the “communion of saints” as are the dead in heaven. Catholics also refer to believers as “saints,” while they are living. After death, only those in heaven can be considered saints. So when the Catholic Church declares someone a saint, they are pointing out that this person has died and gone to heaven. I think we probably agree on this issue.
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
The protestant position of these verses is that they condemn the making of images, sculptures, etc. The Catholic position is that God is condemning the worship of these graven images, which was a common occurrence during this time. We can look to the Bible and discover which interpretation is right. For example, in 1 Kings 6:12 God approves of the temple Solomon made, despite the fact that there are numerous graven images in it (angels, for example). In addition, God gives exact instructions for the creation of the Ark of the Covenant, which includes specific graven images. However, these images were not worshiped. Throughout the Old Testament God asks His people to create these images; Is God violating the Ten Commandments? No, God is all-holy, which means He does not sin. Clearly your interpretation must be incorrect or you attempt to convict God of sin! For Catholics, an image of a Saint is similar to one of the pictures you have in your wallet. The image is meant to remind us of the holiness of the saint and inspire us to do likewise. Essentially the Saints are role models for those still working their way through life. Catholics do not worship anyone but God.

7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
This verse isn’t even discussing baptism. It is simply stating a fact all Christians believe. The Catholic Church teaches that we should baptize by immersion where possible, but that baptism isn’t invalidated if it was done by pouring – that would be legalism. Are you suggesting that God can’t work through flowing water? Or that God only works in a pool of water? This is a silly question. Baptism is a spiritual reality signified by the physical presence of water; how the water is applied will not change the function or reality of baptism.

8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
It also forbids us to address anyone as “teacher.” Do you think Jesus was being literal? Then Paul must have been committing a sin in 1 Corinthians 4:14-15:

I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

We address this further in our article Call no man Father. Paul is clearly referring to himself as our spiritual “father” (he is a religious leader). Also see Matthew 19:19, Mark 9:21, Mark 10:17, and Luke 9:59 – all have references to someone other than God as “father.” We shouldn’t be so literal and pay more attention to Jesus’ point.

9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
You have to ignore Jesus to reach this conclusion. After all, it is Jesus Himself who states that Peter is the foundation (or “Rock”) that Jesus will build His church on in Matthew 16:18. This is an interesting question, since it either implies ignorance of Scripture or a willful desire to ignore certain verses of Scripture. The person writing this acts as though they are familiar with Catholicism – if so, then they have certainly heard this verse before. I’m simply disappointed that this is viewed as a valid question. Read this article for more information on the Gospel of Matthew and how it discusses the Church and the Pope.

10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
Catholics also teach there is only one mediator between God and Man. When we “pray” to the saints, we are simply asking them to pray to Christ for us. There are many Biblical instances of intercessory prayer (which is what this is). For example see Colossians 1:9, 2 Thessalonians 1:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:1, and especially James 5:16, which points out the prayers of the righteous are powerful (those in heaven can be assumed to be righteous). In addition, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says all Christians are “alive” in Christ. Protestants associate prayer with worship, which isn’t completely correct, but it is understandable since protestants don’t have the Mass in which we truly worship God. Catholics would never hold a Mass where the Eucharist wasn’t solely associated with Christ. This is true worship.

11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
Again, if your interpretation is correct, then Paul is making an error in 1 Corinthians 7:7-38. Specifically Paul notes: So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better (1 Cor 7:38). Jesus agreed in Matthew 19:12. It seems that only the Catholic Church contains those who “will do better” since protestant churches typically have married pastors. This verse is really saying that a bishop should not be married to more than one woman.

12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
You keep beating this like a dead horse and of course, it’s still wrong. The Bible not only isn’t opposed to the papacy, it upholds it. This article goes through 50 Biblical Proofs of the Papacy. Jesus Himself renamed Peter (the only person besides Abraham renamed by God) “Rock” and said, “and on this rock I [Jesus] will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18). Clearly Jesus intended to build His Church on the Rock of Peter; are you suggesting that Jesus was wrong or changed His mind? To clarify, “Peter” means “Rock” and after this point in the Bible everyone referred to Simon as “Peter” or “Rock.” Note that the Scripture reference you cite simply discusses the fact that leaders within the Church are really servants, which all of the apostles would agree with as does the Church.

13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
First, this is an interesting story in Scripture (Luke 16:19-31), since it clearly shows talking to the dead isn’t unfathomable (as you have suggested) and isn’t sinful. Now to the point. First, Gehenna is the Biblical term for Hell, not Sheol, which is used in this passage. Do you believe those in Hell are worried about their friends or family? Do those in Hell seek to assist those on Earth? Absolutely not. This man is not in hell, but likely in a secondary state between Heaven and Hell – purgatory. There is a lot of Scripture that suggests purgatory must exist. The most compelling is:

1 Corinthians 3:11-15. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble – each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If an man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

It is only through purgatory that we can be saved, but suffer loss “as through fire.” Another good one is:

1 Corinthians 15:29. Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Again this suggests that we on earth can still help those who have died. In Paul’s day being “baptized for the dead” meant suffering for those who had died, in order to reduce their time in purgatory. There are numerous other verses that clearly explain purgatory: see Matthew 12:32 (forgiven in the age to come), Luke 16:9 (friends can help you, read context), Matthew 5:25-26 (must pay the last penny), and also 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 (requires a complete Bible – not one changed by Martin Luther). Read this article for more detail on Purgatory in the Bible.

14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
I’ll answer point-by-point again:

• Infant baptism is clear in the Bible. First, Jesus said that we should never stop children from coming to Him. But also to claim that infant baptism doesn’t occur in the Bible, you have to suggest that every time the Bible says that the believers’ family was baptized also there were no children in the family. This is before the birth control pill and other forms of contraception, so this is almost impossible. If infant baptism weren’t okay, the Bible would say “but his children were too small to believe” or something similar. It doesn’t!
  
• Instrumental music in worship? What? This is so silly I’m simply going to pretend you different ask it – for your sake. I believe that virtually all protestant denominations have instrumental music in worship as well . . .
  
• I covered indulgences above, so I won’t repeat it here.
  
• Confession is also repetitious, see above.
  
• The Rosary is simply praying to God, which I think is okay in the Bible (call me crazy). The prayers that make up the Rosary are almost purely Scriptural. I assume that’s why it’s lumped in here.
  
• The book of Revelation is a Catholic Mass and John 6:47 and following demands that you eat (translated properly as “gnaw”) the flesh and drink the blood of Christ as we do in Mass. In addition, Jesus tells us how to perform the Mass at the Last Supper, where we are instructed again to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
  
• Many other things? I think I’ve proven that Catholicism is much more Biblical than this list of questions. But if you have more, please ask and I’ll point them out as well.
  

I think the key point you should take away from this is that the Catholic Church is Biblical. In fact, the Catholic Church is significantly more Biblical than any protestant church. If protestant churches are desired by God, then why did it take God 1,500 years to find a single person willing to break away and form these churches? And why did Jesus pray that we would be one as the Trinity is one (John 17:20-23)? The fact is protestant churches broke away, revolted even, from the Church founded by Christ (Matthew 16:18). This break was based upon Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides, both of which are not Biblical. In fact, the Bible clearly teaches sola scriptura is wrong when it (the Bible) declares the Church as the “pillar and bulwark of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) through which “the manifold wisdom of God” is known (Ephesians 3:8-10).

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 11, 2004 10:12 AM

I'm probably replying a little late to this forum, so the people that need this may not hear it.

I am a protestant and I had an arsenal of scripture and sources to throw out to prove that protestants are right in this issue, but before this happened the Holy Spirit spoke to me and gave me a revelation:

Why is it, that the body of Christ is lying in pieces in this world? Why are there 2000 (as you say) different denominations that are not working together? It is because we decide to focus on our differences and spend countless hours arguing and debating over doctrine. Is this right?

First, does it matter if Mary remained a virgin her entire life? The fact that she gave birth to Christ as a virgin is miraculous enough. It seems kind of trivial to argue about whether or not she remained a virgin, because her part in prophecy was completed when she gave birth to Jesus.

Second, does purgatory matter? This is touchier because this is something that we could all potentially face if it is a reality, but shouldn't we be focusing on Jesus? By this I mean that we should be doing good deeds on earth because (A) faith is pointless without deeds (James 2:14-17), and (B) because we love Jesus. It seems to me like doing deeds to get you closer to heaven is wrong, but doing deeds because of your love of Jesus is right.

These debates are good in a sense because they cause you to dig through scripture and learn the Word, but if our energy (a gift given by God) is being spent trying to comdemn or argue with other Christians, what good is being accomplished? Whether we are Catholic or protestant, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and as Jesus so gracefully put it "...Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand." (Mathew 12:37 NIV).

So let's not let our Christian kingdom be ruined and fall because we are too busy fighting among ourselves instead of working together.

In Christ!

Jayson

Posted by: Jayson at April 13, 2004 11:59 PM

Jayson,
We entered these debates because someone suggested that these issues prove that the Catholic Church was not the church founded by God.

The point is this: if God had designed the best possible way to help you get to heaven, would you use it? That way is through the Church Jesus founded in Matthew 16:18, which is the Catholic church.

I think the best way of explaining what we do is this: If we each had to go across the English Channel in order to get to heaven and you had a boat, would you offer the boat to others? Or would you simply let them swim in order to prevent any dissention or debate? We are offering you the boat, Jayson, which is the Catholic Church.

You are correct in pointing out that we should all be one, but you miss the point: Martin Luther divided the body of Christ into "denominations" - all of which are revolting against the true body of Christ in the Catholic Church. The one legacy of protestanism is the division it brings upon Christianity. Our goal is simply to point out the truth: the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded and the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at April 14, 2004 10:37 AM

Jay,

Fantastic point (especially the boat metaphor), yet I refuse to accept that the division among church is caused by Martin Luther. It is true that he branced off of the Catholic church in the 1500s (I believe), but I would have too because SOME members of the Catholic church (not the church itself) were corrupted by power. There were priests and bishops who had concubines (sp) and would make people pay to get blessings or pay for prayer (specifically to pray one's relative from purgatory). Also the Catholic church would use torture to "purify" those who went against the doctrine of the church. To be honest, I would have left the church under these circumstances as well.

The reason for Martin Luther removing the Apocrypha was because those books were not added to the Bible until 1545-1563 in the council of Trent. Now these books are not found in the Hebrew Old Testament, but they are found in some manuscripts of the Septuagint and the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. These books were probably added because the disciples would quote from the Septuagint in their teachings, but they never quoted from any of these books. St. Augustine presided over the councils at Hippo and Carthage and concured the the books were of divine inspiration, but his later writings clearly relfected a rejection of these books as outside the canon and inferior to the Hebrew scriptures. These books are also rejected by the Jewish community, and there is no claim in any of the apocryphal books as to divine inspiration.

The above is from Josh McDowell's book "Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask about the Christian Faith." So don't mistake me for a scholar. I do want to clarify, however, that though many members of the Catholic church were corrupt, I truly believe that they have straightened there act and are good people. I'm a big fan of the Pope and wish no ill will on any Catholic.

I was also under the impression that to get to heaven we have only to put our faith in Jesus. WIth faith comes works, as written in James. Unfortunately many protestants fall under the catagory of people mentioned in Jude verse 4 NIV "...godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality..." I know that many people assume that protesants say "Since Jesus died for us and all we have to do is believe in him, let's go live our lives and sin all we want." This is true for some of us, who I say aren't good people. But I challenge this question to you, are there Catholics who use purgatory as an excuse to sin? You know the answer is yes because I knew some. These were people who I would say "why are you partying and living this kind of life, don't you want to go to heaven?" and their response would be "I don't need to worry about it because I'll just get prayed their from purgatory."

Jesus ascended into heaven and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. Picture this: let's say you have to rake the leaves in your yard (a big yard with lots of trees.) This is a task that will take a LONG time. So you get out there and do your work, when you are finished what do you do? You go inside and sit back in your favorite chair and relax. Sitting is a sign of being finished. Jesus went through his duty here on earth, suffered for us, and died so that we wouldn't have to suffer (by WE I mean devout Christians). He sat at the right hand of the Father, completing his work, paving the way for us.

Everyone is going to take this issue as they will, and I agree that debate in the way that Jay put it is good (if only to help people). I just want to give two scriputes here to remind people of a few things. James 1:19 (being slow to anger) and second Timothy 2:23-24 (not partaking in foolish arguments). Let me clarify, this is not a foolish argument if you believe you are trying to "lend someone a boat" as Jay put it, but if you are debating just to get a point in or to prove someone else wrong, then I would strongly reconsider if I were you, because the Lord is not fooled.

By His grace!

Jayson

Posted by: Jayson at April 14, 2004 11:17 AM

Jayson,

Thanks for posting here; we are enjoying your comments. I would like to make a few points. First, you don't leave Peter because of Judas. If Christ established a Church and said to submit to its leaders than the fact that there are a lot of bad leaders does not change the command. Your points about the problems with the sixteenth century Church are largely valid. But as Paul Johnson once said, "Come on it. It's awful!" There have always been and will always be Judas'. We do not abandon the Church on that count.

Second, the doctrinal points you mentioned are precisely the cause of the division. Christ established a Church. In Acts, we read how the apostles governed the Church, including on doctrinal issues. Imagine if the disputing factions in the controversy that led to the council of Jerusalem had said, "Well James and Peter, we disagree with your reading of the Scripture, so we're leaving!" The very idea is ridiculous. Christ placed the authority of God in these men. The evangelicals out converting the world were still required to submit their own interpretations of Christianity to the infallible authority of the apostles. What has changed in the last 2000 years that you think God wants it done any different now?

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at April 14, 2004 12:31 PM

You made several mistakes or overlooked several things when talking about the Apocrypha. Gary Hoge does a good job explaining it here, http://catholicoutlook.com/objapoc1.html, but I will sum up his arguments for you to save you some time.

First, the 6 books of the Apocrypha were in bible going back to Synod of Hippo in 393. You admitted this but stated that in his later writings St. Augustine rejected these books. This is not true, all Augustine does in his later writings (a book called "Retractations") is correct who he cited as the author of the book of Wisdom. Augustine says that he was wrong about who wrote the book, but he never says that the book is not inspired. In the same book, Augustine even calls Maccabees part of the "Old Scripture" and defends prayer for the dead.

The second argument you make against the Apocrypha is that it was rejected by the Jewish community and doesn't claim to be inspired itself. This argument doesn't make much sense. First, Greek speaking Jews did accept the books. The reason the Palestinian Jews rejected it was because they were part of the "Septuagint" which was basically the Old Testament that was read by the early church fathers. Gary Hoge points out that the Protestant International Bible Commentary agrees, "The completed LXX [Septuagint] not only contained the 39 books of the Hebrew canon; it also contained other books as well, books commonly called apocryphal. . . . Recent studies show that for all practical purposes the Bible of the NT writers was the LXX [Septuagint] ."

Even if every Jew rejected the Apocrypha, why does that matter. Every Jew rejects Jesus as the Messiah, does that mean we shouldn't believe? You say that there is no claim of divine inspiration in these books. That is true. However, besides the book of Revelations no other New Testament book claims to be inspired, does that mean that they aren't? Of course not.

Some of your arguments are misconceptions, and some are just plain stupid. The books of the apocrypha were in the Bible for 1000 years before Martin Luther took them out. The Jews might not accept them but they don't except Jesus either, that doesn't mean we should stop believing what we do. In fact, if we believed what the Jewish community does we wouldn't be Christians now would we. The fact is, Martin Luther took these books out because they tought doctrines that he didn't like such as prayer for the dead and purgatory.

Posted by: Tom Ace at April 14, 2004 12:37 PM

Dave,

You make a very good case, it is obvious that you are all well educated in the Word. I ask you this, is it possible that the church the Bible speaks of is not only the Catholic church, but also the "church" mentioned when He said "when two or more are gathered in My name, I am there" (not a direct quote)?

In Him who is risen!

Jayson

Posted by: Jayson at April 14, 2004 12:47 PM

Jayson,

The "Church" means two things. First, the organizational and earthly entity. This is referenced numerous times in the epistles, and much of Paul's writings are directed towards Church organization. Moreover, there are very clear examples of a divine office in Matthew 16 ("upon this rock" and "keys to the kingdom", which is a direct reference to Isaiah), all of the Last Supper passages (which only the disciples shared), John 20 (Jesus breaths only on the disciples and gives them alone the power to forgive sins), John 21 (Peter is called as the shepherd), and Acts (Matthias replaces Judas, the council of Jerusalem). A study of early Church history reveals the inescapable truth that the Church is not just some ethereal and invisible entity.

The second meaning, as you suggest, is made of all those who will become saints. This is a fact that the Church teaches. But it in no way derrogates from the authority of certain Christians over others. That authority and its legitmacy is clearly seen in the Bible and preached by Christ and the apostles. The only Church that can legitimately claim that She has been given that authority is the Catholic Church. Every other denomination was formed out of a rejection of authority. In other words, a properly appointed authority said one thing, the subordinate said "I disagree", and left the Church. This, my friend is so un-Biblical that it is ridiculous.

Finally, with regard to "the church of the Bible", I would like to correct you. In truth, it is "the Bible of the Church." If you will notice, the Bible never claims that it is the pillar of Truth. On the other hand, I Tim. 3:15 states that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth." As a matter of historical fact, the New Testament was compiled by the Church in 390-400 AD. Finally, Christ never said that He would establish a Book. He said that He would establish a Church, and that is what He did. If every Bible manuscript were burned, what would you do? I know what I would do--turn to the one place where God's Truth has resided for 2000 years, the Church. Therefore, the Bible is the Book of the Church; the Catholic Church is the church in the Bible, but not of the Bible. The only "of" about it is that She is the Church of Christ, the Body of Christ, and the Bride of Christ. The Holy Spirit resides in Her, and she resides in Christ. God bless.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at April 14, 2004 03:44 PM

Good points to everyone. You guys are obviously much more educated in this field than I am, so I am going to have to willingly submit and declare you the winners (though I will still maintain my current beliefs). I'm willing to agree to disagree.

To Dave, I'm glad that you were willing to walk me through things and try to help me understand, you make a lot of good points and good sense.

To Tim, you need to work on your people skills. Calling an argument "just plain stupid" is no way of convincing someone that you are right. All it does it cause the person that you are refering to to take a defensive position and close all doors that may have been opened a crack. Read second Timothy 2:23-24, and remember that a debate doesn't become a "foolish argument" until this stuff comes into play.

Also to Tim, remember that my point of view on the Apocrypha came from a book that I didn't write (as I clearly stated) so they are not my arguments at all, I was just challenging you guys to think and respond. Jay and Dave did fantastic, and you made some great points and did good at countering my argument, but you had to hit below the belt and try to rub in what you thought was right.

To everyone else, keep fighting for what you believe in and don't back down. This is all very impressive and I'll have to research this stuff a little more in depth if I want to find the truth.

In the name of Jesus!

Jayson

Posted by: Jayson at April 14, 2004 10:25 PM

Jayson, sorry if i rubbed you the wrong way. It's nothing personal I just talk like that with my friends alot joking around when we argue about sports or whatever. I meant nothing by it.

Posted by: Tom Ace at April 15, 2004 03:14 AM

Don't worry about it Tim

Posted by: Jayson at April 15, 2004 09:36 AM

Woops, Tom, sorry ;)

Posted by: Jayson at April 15, 2004 11:40 PM

I have read through the posts. I grew up a catholic and when I was in my twenties I started attending a neigborhood bible study. I left the
Catholic Church and attended various Protestant
churches for about twenty years. I will be fifty
this June and I have been back at the Catholic
Church for about thee or four years. I give this information so you know where I am coming from.

I have been studying the bible since 1980. I
still have questions about the Mass. Is it reincacttment of the Last supper or is it a resacrificing of Christ?

2.)If it is the latter than it is unscriptural. Christ Died once for all.
3.) Why does the priest ask to accept the sacrifice at his hands ?
4.)Didn't God Accept the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross? Why do we need to keep offering a sacrifice ?
5.)Didn't the cross end the need for continual sacrifices?

The writers of scriture were not Catholics or Protestants. They were Mostly Jewish with the exception of Luke.

Look at the Greek. Jesus called Peter Petros
little stone or pebble (Strongs Concordance)
And upon this Rock Petra (Different word) I will
build my church. He is building His Church on the
confession Peter had Just made, which was that
Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. Jesus was building His church on this truth, NOT on Peter.
Christ is the Head of the Church, Not Peter or
any Pope.

Your are very good and persuasive in your arguments but you also leave some things out, like the differences in the Greek Petros and Petra.

The Catholic church Never encouraged me to read
the bible when I was growing up. They just wanted
me to listen to the priest and not search the
bible for myself. They never told me that Christianity is a relationship with Christ and
NOT a Religion. God Does not want blind religion.
He wants a relationship with His Children.

Also when Jesus and Paul and any other NT writer
refers to scripture, they are refering to the
Old Testament. The New Testament hadn't been
written yet.

So Catholics did not write scripture. Jews did.
The term Catholic means Universal. It has no other special meaning.

You talk about History, I believe the term Roman Catholic did not come into being until well after the Council of Niceia in 325. You are deluding yourself if you believe that Any church has remained completely true to God's word.

The Jews, God's Chosen people couldn't do it.
No man can. As long as there are men in charge
there will be some sin or incorrect teaching.
Satan is alive and well and working in ALL demominations... There is no Perfect Church.

There was only One Perfect man and HE was God in the Flesh, namely Yahshua.The Hebrew name for
Jesus. The name Jesus didn't come into being
until the 1500's. There was no J in the english
language until then. The Greek transliteration of
the name of our Lord is IOSES not Jesus.

Your name is Jay right? Would you like me to call you by your equivalent name in another
Language? That's not your name right ?

Jesus was a Jew and His Jewish name is Yahshua.

I am not angry. I am just tired of the Catholics
and the Protestants and the Jews fighting over
who is right and who has the right religion.

Follow the two commandments that our Lord gave,
Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself.
If we do that and believe in Him as the
Only Savior of the World we will enter his Kingdom like the thief on the Cross who is with
Him in Paradise. I welcome your comments

Clem

Posted by: clem at April 21, 2004 12:37 PM

Regarding 1 Timothy 3:15. I think you are taking this scripture out of context. I don't
see this meaning that the church and tradition
trumps scripture ? I Believe Scripture should
be held up as the standard first and then any
historical data should come in only if it does
not contradict Scripture. Jesus Himself ridiculed and put down the traditions of men and
their misinterpretation of God's word.

If the church and the popes are infalable then
why did the Catholics and Protestants
persecute the Jews for killing Jesus though out
history and then in recent times in Vatican I or
II absolve the Jews from any guilt as a people
for the Death of Christ... This proves that the
popes have made mistakes. I am sure there are
many other examples through out history of things that were church doctrine and then later were reversed by another pope. No meat on Friday was a Sin and now it is not a sin. The mass was in Latin now it is in the language of the local people. So don't say that the Catholic church is perfect and does not make mistakes. I think
turning their backs on the Holocost was a big
mistake..

Christ is the head and we are the body Catholics
and Protestants. The Church of Philadephia is
a remnant from all of the churches. There is not going to be segeration in heaven. Believers from
every denomination will be there as the one body
of Christ. His true bride ...

Posted by: clem at April 21, 2004 02:16 PM

Clem,
Let me clear up some of these issues. First, the mass is a participation in the one and only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. We continually offer the sacrifice because Jesus commanded it - see the last supper accounts in the Bible, "Do this in remembrance of me." Also see the second half of John 6: "If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you."

You are incorrect: the writers of the Bible were Catholics. Yes, their race was Jewish, but they were all in the one and only Christian Church of the time, which was the Catholic Church.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. So what Jesus said is that you are Cephus (Aramaic for "Rock") and on this cephus (Aramaic for "Rock"), I will build my church. The only copy of the New Testament that still exists is written in Greek, so that is where our translations come from. In Greek, Petros is the masculine word and Petra is the feminine, so the writer would naturally not call a man by a feminine name (especially during those times). This explains the Greek difference. But it's important to note that Jesus was speaking Aramaic (scholars agree on this) and there is no difference in the Aramaic words. The argument to create a difference is still meaningless: I believe the Bible is clear on what Jesus intended (this was universally believed until Luther tried to create a difference).

Just because no one encouraged you to sit down and read the Bible doesn't mean the Church wasn't founded by God. It's primarily your parent's job to encourage this, but you have the responsibility to develop the relationship yourself. The church has always taught with St. Jerome that "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."

Actually the term "catholic" was used many times well before that council (which was a Catholic council, by the way). For example, in The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp around 155 A.D. the church was called the "Catholic church" - this was a casual mention, not an argument to rename the church, which indicates it was accepted during that time. The term "Roman" fulfills the Old Testament prophecies of Daniel - this article explains the prophecy.

If you believe every church is corrupt, then how do you explain Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18-19. Jesus Himself promises that the "gates of hell shall not prevail" against His Church. Any corruption would be the failure of the Church, which God Incarnate promised would not happen. I'll take God's Word for it and assume you're wrong.

I'm not sure why it matters that we've changed Jesus' name to fit our language. If you move to another country, do you think they'll call you "Clem"? No, they will call you the closest thing to Clem in their language. I doubt Jesus cares that we pronounce his name a little differently. But, to counter your point, the official language of the Catholic Church is not English, so Jesus is called by another pronounciation in other languages - what did they call "Jesus" in your Bible study?

Finally, Jesus created a Church in Matthew 16:18. He guaranteed that the "gates of hell would not prevail" against it. It is called the "pillar of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and through it the "manifold wisdom of God is made known" (Eph 3:8-10). It offers us the Sacraments that help us to be holy and is God's chosen path to heaven. Why should we not proclaim it to the world? You seem to be asking us to keep our candle of truth hidden so others won't be offended (of course, they won't come to the truth, either). Discussion is good so that truth may be clear.

As for your last part, then why does the Bible indicate baptism and the Eucharist are necessary? We are told we "must" be born of water and spirit (note that water is required) and that we "must" eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood. These are important parts of the Bible as well.

I would recommend that you read the Early Church Fathers - this would clear up much of your confusion about the early Catholic church.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at April 21, 2004 02:35 PM

Jay,

It can be debated what language or languages
Jesus spoke depending on what Scholar you read.
There is no consensus on this. I have read that Jesus probably spoke several languages.

Could Matthew 16:16-20 also mean that Jesus was acknowledging Peter's confession That He, Jesus was the Christ. And that Jesus was saying upon this Truth and NOT Peter I will build
my Church. It does not make sense that He would build HIS church on one person, Peter.

Not to be disagreable but Jews and NOT Catholics
or Christians wrote the Old Testament. They also
wrote most of the New Testament. This is a historical fact which can not be disputed. To reject this is to reject the truth. The organized
church known as the Catholic Church started much Later. Of course you will probably say this is not the case .

The Old Testament came through the Jews (God's chosen people of old) who had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, "What advantage then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted to them." (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38)

I was visiting a Friends church last week. They were seventh day adventists. I overheard a group of them discussing all the faults of the Catholic
church.

My point is All of the churches claim to be the true church both Catholic and Protestant.
But the truth is the Catholic faith came from Jewish roots and the Protestant faith came from
Catholic roots.

I am paraphazing now but Paul said that the Gentiles have been grafted into the Vine . The true church started with the JEWS. The gentiles were grafted in to that Vine through God's Grace.

God entrusted the Scriptures to the Jews and no one else. That is an undisputable fact. Why did
Jesus command in the great commission to go to the Jew first.

Jay, How do you know when to take a scripture literally and when to take it figurativly ?

When Jesus said that if your eye causes you to sin you should pluck it out , Did He mean that a person should literally pluck out their eye if it caused them to sin. We would have a lot of blind male christians walking around. When Jesus
gave the Bread and the Wine at the last supper and said do this in memory of me did He mean we are literally eating His Flesh and drinking HIS blood or does it represent His flesh and Blood.
I believe the Later.

It seems that Catholics and Protestants interpret
scriptures like these Literally when it suites
there argument or point of view or figuratively
if that fits the argument.

Jesus didn't come to start a religion. He came to restore a broken relationship with man. God
wants a relationship with us, Not a religion.

I know that you will probably disagree with my
line of thinking. However it is very offensive to encounter people who have the arrogance to believe that their point of view is the only truth. That is a dangerous position to take.

You read a scripture and say that it means one thing and someone else reads the same scripture
and sees an entirely different meaning. Both claim to be Christians. Both claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

All these demominations think they have the truth
and bash the other saying they are misguided.

I did not come to this site to bash Catholics.
I came to get answers to questions. I am tired of
all of the bashing. Satan is a happy camper causing doubt and pride is his number one weapon.

Clem

Posted by: Clem at April 21, 2004 09:04 PM

Clem,
Clearly someone has told you this stuff but you've never researched it. Again, I highly recommend you read some of the Early Church Fathers - a substantial amount of Christian writings were done in the time just after Christ (before some of the New Testament was written).

First, there is no disagreement: Jesus was speaking Aramaic. Second, if Jesus was simply acknowledging the confession, why did they start referring to Simon as Peter or Cephas from that point on? You can't argue that Jesus was referring to the confession and renamed Peter without demolishing the actual words of Jesus. Read them again: "You are Cephas and on this cephas I will build My church." Any argument around this is in error.

You continue to suggest that the Catholic church started much later - this is because you haven't done any study of the Early Church Fathers. From the beginning, priests offered us the Eucharist and a hierarchy is discussed. I don't know who fed you the line about the Catholic Church starting later, but they were not telling you the truth. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, Christ founded the Catholic Church and the Bible is clear on it. I suggest you read through some of the articles on our site, which clearly show the Catholicity of the Bible.

Yes, Jews wrote the Old Testament, but Catholics wrote the New - we have much proof throughout this website.

Clem, Jesus didn't come to earth to write a book. He does not say "go and write the New Testament." If Jesus wanted to write a book, He would have done it Himself. Instead, Jesus came to earth to found a Church. He did found a church. Only one church can prove it comes from the apostles. Protestant churches did not exist until 500 years ago and they revolted against the Church Christ created. The Bible is a Catholic document - as St. Augustine famously said, "I would not believe the Bible if the Church had not told me to."

I was raised protestant and challenged on the issues, so I began studying indepth. Protestants ignore much of Scripture in order to hold to their beliefs. Only the Catholic Church can adhere to all Scripture.

You mention that Jesus was not speaking literally in the second half of John 6. I suggest you read on: All of Jesus' disciples (except the twelve) leave Him because they cannot accept the teaching of the Eucharist. If Jesus wasn't being literal, wouldn't He have said, "Wait! This is just a metaphor, a symbol. All you have to do is believe!"? Why would Jesus lose so many souls over a misu