July 2004 Archives

I think it’s important to note that there are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who are practical atheists, which means no matter what they profess to believe it really doesn’t affect their lives in any direct way. Then there are those who seek out God and attempt to conform to the truth they understand – this includes virtually everyone visiting our blog – after all if you didn’t care you wouldn’t have ever found us.

A conversion from one belief system to another is a big deal – to shake off an old religion that you have grown up believing is very difficult. This type of conversion demands not only intellectual assent to truth but something more, it demands some reason for conversion; if there was no real reason, most would allow conversion to be put off for years – even if they mentally assented to the new truth. For me, it was a hunger or a thirst for God. I came to accept the Biblical doctrine of the Eucharist and I hungered for it in a way that prevented me from putting off my conversion. God is calling each of us to an intimate relationship based upon consuming His flesh and blood, is there any way to resist? Even if there was, why would you want to? There is no closer personal relationship with Christ.

In John 6, Jesus commands that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood so that we might have life in us. Through this consumption of God, we receive direct grace that gives us the strength to conform our will to His, to become the men and women He calls us to be. The question is not, “Am I required to partake in order to get to heaven?” the question is, “How can I wait another day to unite with God in such a way?” Especially when God desires this even more than we do.

God bless,
Jay

Over the years I have spent a lot of time pondering the Scriptures as well as the claims of various denominations in terms of the inspiration of the Bible. As I have always found, the Protestant explanation is wanting. It lacks substance. Many reach the conclusion that the Bible is inspired simply because they believe it is or because the Bible claims to be. But does it really? Below is a chapter from the book Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians". Keating is an active apologist, writing multiple books, debating with various Protestant leaders over the main dividing issues between Catholics and Protestants, and speaking across the country to Catholics interested in learning more about their Catholic Faith. The chapter I have quoted here is on the understanding of the inspiration of the Bible. It fairly presents the Protestant claims as well as the Catholic answer. Enjoy!

The Reformers said the Bible is the sole source of religious truth, and its understanding must be found by looking only at the words of the text. No outside authority may impose an interpretation, and no outside authority, such as the Church, has been established by Christ as an arbiter. As heirs of the Reformers, fundamentalists work on the basis of sola scriptura, and they advance this notion at every opportunity. One might think it would be easy for them to explain why they believe this principle.

Yet there is perhaps no greater frustration, in dealing with fundamentalists, than in trying to pin them down on why the Bible should be taken as a rule of faith at all, let alone as the sole rule of faith. It all reduces to the question of why fundamentalists accept the Bible as inspired, because the Bible can be taken as a rule of faith only if it is first held to be inspired and thus inerrant.

Now this is a problem that does not keep most Christians awake at night. Most have never given it any serious thought. To the extent they believe in the Bible, they believe in it because they operate in a milieu that is, if post-Christian in many ways, still steeped in Christian ways of thought and presuppositions. A lukewarm Christian who would not give the slightest credence to the Koran would think twice about casting aspersions on the Bible. It has a certain official status for him, even if he cannot explain it. One might say he accepts the Bible as inspired (whatever that may mean for him) for some "cultural" reason, but that, of course, is hardly a sufficient reason, since on such a basis the Koran rightly would be considered inspired in a Moslem country.

Similiarly, it is hardly enough to say that one's family has always believed in the Bible, "and that's good enough for me". It may indeed be good enough for the person disinclined to think, and one should not disparage a simple faith, even if held for an ultimately weak reason, but mere custom cannot establish the inspiration of the Bible.

Some fundamentalists say they believe the Bible is inspired because it is "inspirational", but that is a word with a double meaning. On the one hand, if used in the strict theological sense, it clearly begs the question, which is: How do we know the Bible is inspired, that is, "written" by God, but through human authors? And if "inspirational" means nothing more than "inspiring" or "moving", then someone with a deficient poetic sense might think the works of a poetaster are inspired.

Parts of the Bible, including several whole books of the Old Testament, canot be called "inspirational" in this sense in the least, unless one works on the principle of the elderly woman who was soothed every time she heard "the blessed word Mesopotamia." One betrays no disrespect in admitting that some parts of the Bible are as dry as military statistics--indeed, some partsare nothing but military statistics--and there is little there that can move the emotions.
So, it is not enough to believe in the inspiration of the Bible merely out of culture or habit, nor is it enough to believe in its inspiration because it is a beautifully written or emotion-stirring book. there are other religious books, and even some plainly secular ones, that outscore most of the Bible when it comes to fine prose or poetry.

We have had numerous comments, both recently and in the past, questioning the position of Peter in the Church. This subject is one of supreme importance in considering the very nature of the Church and how it is to be governed. In fact, one of the most basic divisions between Protestants and Catholics is premised on this subject.

Much Protestant theology is based on the notion that Christianity is primarily an individual experience. That we may have "leaders" so to speak, but that these leaders have no ultimate authority over us that comes directly from God. In other words, the authority of a Protestant minister, bishop, elder, etc. is drawn from the people, not from God. A pastor has authority over me because I choose to submit to him; but if I do not agree with him, I am free to remove myself from under him. In a way, Protestant leaders are more like gurus than actual authorities because their power is derived from the individuals' recognition of the guru's alignment with God. Once that recognition is gone, the guru is no longer a leader.

On the other hand, Catholic theology is based on the vision of Christianity as a collective experience. If Protestantism can be likened to a democratic society, Catholicism can be likened to a family. The bishops, and in particular the successor to Peter, act as a sort of parent. Our parents have ultimate and unquestionable authority. We do not choose them, nor can we choose to abandon them. Their authority is not rooted in our recognition of it, nor can their authority be removed simply by our abandonment of the Church.

At the root of this difference is the understanding of how Christ created the Church. To Protestants, the "Church" is simply an amalgam of all believers under whatever form, as long as they trust in Christ. Their unity as a single body is determined solely by their faith in Christ and does not depend on a visible unity. Unity of authority and/or doctrine is not important, possible, or to some even desirable. Pastors, bishops, etc. are simply an efficient way of organizing congregations, but are not offices holding divine power and authority. Catholics, on the other hand, see that Christ set up a visible body that would be governed by His apostles and their successors. Unity is achieved only by submission to these successors. It is this unity that makes us a single body. And it is only as members of the body that we have true communion with the head, which is Christ. Catholics acknowledge that Peter is the prince of the apostles and that his successor retains that princely position. This acknowledgement is the foundation of our communion with the Catholic Church, which is headed by the successor to Peter. It explains not only the most fundamental divergence from Protestants, but also explains the reason why we cling to the bishop of Rome as opposed to our Orthodox brethren who are also led by the successors of the apostles.

Therefore, I present the following exegetical piece exploring the role of Peter as it is found in Scripture. I have classified the Biblical passages into three different types, each of which points to a unique and primal role that Peter held. The first is circumstantial evidence that, while not containing any doctrinal statements, shows that Peter's leadership was taken for granted by the writers of the New Testament. The second consists of places in the Gospels where Christ called Peter out from the other apostles and gave him a special calling. Third, there is Scriptural evidence of Peter's leadership in the young Church; not just ordinary leadership, but that of an ultimate arbiter. It is my hope that in considering this mountain of Biblical writing placed in a single article, we can get past petty comments that explain away one verse at a time so that we can review what the Bible as a whole has to say about Peter. To that end, let’s refrain from discussing one verse at a time and instead focus any discussion on the overall themes that these Scriptures present.

Amy Welborn (of Open Book) wrote a nice little analysis of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. I have to commend Amy on a well thought out and even-keeled analysis of The Da Vinci Code’s problems, since it would be easy to rant on a book this deceitful. But she goes step by step and shows how very little The Da Vinci Code reflects true history from a secular or a religious viewpoint – and she does it in a very compact way, which means this is a quick read that’s loaded with proofs of Brown’s errors. I do think that Amy is overly nice to Dan Brown in her criticisms, but she still makes it clear that he is not a history scholar no matter how he fashions himself to the public.

I think my favorite point is when Welborn points out that one of the books that heavily influenced The Da Vinci Code is considered fiction by it’s author – a classic blunder. There’s so many errors in fact that it’s difficult to even begin listing them, but De-Coding Da Vinci does a great job of simply focusing on the big mistakes and using small asides to point out the numerous errors that aren’t central to the bigger religious issues Dan Brown attempts to bring up. Welborn covers the reality of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the early Church – oh and Mary, the Mother of God, whom Dan Brown surprisingly overlooks in his book (this would destroy one of his central thesis) – as well as Constantine and the historical aspects of Christianity with ease. She really does a wonderful job of simply pointing out the emperor Brown’s lack of attire.

Personally, I think Dan’s going to have a lot of explaining to do when he leaves this world (Dante would suggest there’s a special place in hell for those like Brown). I know several people who had a crisis of faith after reading The Da Vinci Code and, frankly, it’s a shame. It’s a shame that Dan would attempt to pass this book as historically accurate. And it’s a shame that there isn’t more attention paid to the ridiculous claims he makes. For those who have read The Da Vinci Code, I highly recommend you take a few hours and read the other side: Amy Welborn’s devastating and accurate rebuttals of Brown’s errors. You won’t view The Da Vinci Code in the same light again. For those who haven’t, read De-Coding Da Vinci anyway, you will receive questions about the book, if you haven’t already. Click here to see De-Coding Da Vinci on Amazon.com.

God bless,
Jay

I recently ran across this article detailing the dates certain churches were started and found it fascinating. Historically, it's a compelling question: are we to believe that the Holy Spirit attempted for almost 1,500 years to fix the Christian Church and suddenly he found a man holy enough to do it? That man, Martin Luther, of course went off the deep end later in his life - even protestants agree that it didn't end well for him - and he needed an essentially evil king to help him get it done.

Is that the answer? I find it difficult to believe, especially since now we can see the ramifications of this answer: schism and division. The opposite of Christ's prayer that we be "one" as He and Father are one so that others might believe. Is there another way to view Luther's revolt?

Some of the dates on bigger churches:
- 1534 is when the Anglican church was started
- 1605 is when the first Baptist church was started
- 1744 is when the Methodist church was started
- 1829 is when the Mormon church was started

The Catholic Church was founded in 33 by Jesus Christ Himself - come home.

God bless,
Jay

Just a quick note to point out that there are several key votes on the Federal Marriage Amendment coming up - particularly one in the Senate. Basically this bill would add an amendment to the Constitution noting that marriage in the US can only be between one man and one woman.

Right now, Tom Daschle (D) is working overtime to derail any vote on the Amendment and the Democrats are trying to block it from ever coming up in the Senate (what are they so afraid of?). So please take the time to contact your representatives in the Senate and the House and ask for their support. Our country needs this bill to pass. At Congress.org you can find and contact your representatives.

God bless,
Jay

John Henry Cardinal Newman was one of the great Catholic converts of his day. Born in 1801, Newman was raised Anglican. At the age of 24 he was ordained an Anglican priest. He was of high regard in the Anglican Church and his conversion to Catholicism rocked the Anglican world. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1847 and he eventually was made a bishop, and then a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII. Newman was an outstanding scholar and a tenacious apologist. He also was a prolific writer. One of his most reknown books was the classic The Development of Christian Doctrine . Yet he also wrote about many other matters of the faith including the Blessed Virgin Mary. Through his preaching and his writing, Newman led many Anglicans and other non-Catholics of his day to the fullness of the Catholic faith.

The Mystical Rose is a compilation of Newman's writings on Mary. It is divided into two parts. The first part shows how the Catholic Church's teachings on Mary are based in the New Testament and the Early Church Fathers. The second part is taken from his work Meditations and Devotions and explains the various attributes given to the Mother of God in the Litany of Loreto. This book provide a good overview of Marian doctrine and a sound meditation on the Woman who bore our Redeemer. Here is a brief excerpt:

Mary has been made more glorious in her person than in her office; her purity is a higher gift than her relationship to God. This is what is implied in Christ's answer to the woman in the crowd who cried out, when he was preaching, "Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the breasts which thou hast sucked." He replied by pointing out to his disciples a higher blessedness; "Yea, rather blessed," he said, "are they who hear the word of God and keep it..."
Protestants take these words in disparagement of our Lady's greatness, but they really tell the other way. For consider them; He lays down a priniciple that it is more blessed to keep His commandments than to be His Mother, but who even of Protestants will say that she did not keep His commandments? She kept them surely, and our Lord does but say that such obedience was in a higher line of privilege than her being His Mother. She was more blessed in her detachment from creatures, in her devotion to God, in her virginal purity, in her fullness of grace, than in her maternity. This is the constant teaching of the holy Fathers: "More blessed was Mary," says Augustine, "in receiving Christ's faith, than in conceiving Christ's flesh." And St. Chrysostom declares that she would not have been blessed, though she had borne Him in the body, had she not heard the word of God and kept it.
This of course is an impossible case; for she was made holy that she might be made His Mother, and the two blessednesses cannot be divided. She who was chosen to supply flesh and blood to the Eternal Word was first filled with grace in body and soul. Still, she had a double blessedness, of office and of qualification for it, and the latter was the greater. And it is on this account that the angel call her blessed. "Full of grace," he says, "blessed among women"; and St. Elizabeth also, when she cried out, "Blessed thou that has believed." Nay, she herself bears a like testimony, when the Angel announced to her the favor which was coming on her. - The Mystical Rose, pg. 48-49

In Christ,
Joe

First, the Catholic Church uses the term Saint to refer to those we know are already in heaven. The Church uses saints (lowercase) to refer to the faithful on earth. The Saints, as we’ve attempted to show on this blog, are a wonderful resource for Christians that we can ask to pray for us - just like we would ask a friend to pray for us, but we know Saints are especially holy, since they are already in heaven.

So what is a Patron Saint? Certain Saints are very well known for specific characteristics for various reasons. For example, St. Jerome is well-known for being a pre-eminent Scriptural Scholar. So St. Jerome was named the Patron Saint of Scripture Scholars, which is fitting since Scriptural Scholars are most likely to be asking for his help! It’s that simple and straightforward. Since we do a significant amount of talking about Scripture, I thought I would post the traditional prayer to St. Jerome here.

Master of unworldliness and founder of monasteries, you had a deep love for God’s inspired Word and were a most careful translator of the Sacred Scriptures.

Your single-mindedness in seeking God’s glory is a perfect model for all exegetes. Inspire them with respect for the sacred text as well as for Tradition and the Church’s Magesterium.

Help them to impart to all the true meaning of the Word of God.

God bless,
Jay

This is the next in my series of reference guides for the Bible and the Early Church Fathers. Note that I limited this strictly to
citations of Peter and his primacy - I've already covered Apostolic Succession,
so I did not repeat those references here, even though some are clearly related to this topic.

Biblical references are always listed first (regardless of date) and formatted as so: Verse. Short synopsis of content and other comments.

Early Church Father references are formatted as so: Author Name of Work. Date – traditional numbering (Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers Numbering). Short synopsis of content and other comments.

The Primacy of Peter:

• Matthew 10:2. Peter is called “first.” The other lists of apostles all put Peter first (Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13).
  
• Matthew 16:18-19. This is Christ establishing the papacy. “Peter” means “Rock” in Aramaic, the language Jesus was speaking. Previously, Jews used the word "Cephas" or "Rock" only to refer to God. Refers to Isaiah 22:20-22. See also Revelation 3:7.
  
• Matthew 17:24-27. Jesus asks Peter to decide (the only place where Jesus asks this type of question to another).
  
• Mark 16:7. An Angel recognizes the primacy of Peter.
  
• Luke 22:21-32. Peter is told to “strengthen your brethren.”
  
• Luke 24:12 (see also John 20:6). Peter is the first to enter Jesus’ tomb – the other apostle (John) waits for Peter to enter first.
  
• John 21:7. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to go to Christ.
  
• John 21:15-17. Only Peter is told to feed the sheep or to act as Jesus’ substitute on earth.
  
• Acts 1:15 ff. Peter leads the company (120 people) in replacing the seat of Judas. Note also this establishes Apostolic succession, which would apply to Peter.
  
• Acts 3:6 ff. Peter works the first miracle after Pentecost.
  
• Acts 4:7-12. Peter is regarded as the speaker by the Jews. See also Acts 2:37 for a similar recognition.
  
• Acts 5:1-10. Peter performs the first excommunication, which is followed by the Holy Spirit taking the life of those excommunicated, perhaps to clearly define the “anathema.”
  
• Acts 5:15. Peter’s shadow can heal (this is not mentioned of others).
  
• Acts 9:40. Peter is the first to raise the dead after Jesus.
  
• Acts 10:1-6. An angel sends others to Peter for instruction.
  
• Acts 10:28 ff. Peter is the first to receive the gentiles.
  
• Acts 15:7-12. Peter showing his primacy by deciding the matter and noting that God decided the Gentiles would hear the gospel from Peter.
  
• Galatians 2:14. Peter has the power to “compel” the Gentiles.
  
• Tertullian Monogamy. c. 213 A.D. - 8, 4 (381). The church was “built upon” Peter.
  
• Tertullian Modesty. c. 220 A.D. - 21, 7 (387). Explains that Peter alone had the church built upon himself and alone has the keys to the kingdom.
  
• St. Clement of Alexandria Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? c. 190 A.D. - 21, 1 (436). Describes Peter as “the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the apostles.”
  
• Origen Commentaries on John. c. 226 A.D. - 5, 3 (479a). Points out that on Peter the church was built.
  
• Origen Homilies on Exodus. c. 244 A.D. - 5, 4 (489). Calls Peter “the great foundation of the Church” and “that most solid of rocks.”
  
• St. Cyprian of Carthage The Unity of the Catholic Church. c. 251 A.D. - 4 (555-556). A lengthy essay on the primacy of Peter and what Jesus intended by building the Church on him. Asks “If one does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?”
  
• St. Cyprian of Carthage Letter without Heading to the Lapsed. c. 250 A.D. - 33, [27], 1 (571). Explains Jesus’ decision to build the church on Peter and details the hierarchy.
  
• St. Cyprian of Carthage Letter to Florentius Pupianus. c. 254 A.D. - 66, [69], 8 (587). Explains the primacy of Peter and notes that “if someone is not with the Bishop, he is not in the Church.”
  
• St. Cyprian of Carthage Letter to Quintus, A Bishop in Mauretania. c. 254 A.D. - 71, 1 (592a). Explains the role and humility of Peter - also points out that all the baptized are baptized into the Catholic Church.
  
• Aphraates the Persian Sage Treatises. c. 336 A.D. - 21, 13 (693a). Points out that Jesus handed the keys to Peter and ascended to His Father.
  

  God bless,
  Jay

We have recently renewed some discussion about the use of contraception and the intrinsic evil of such as an action against the human person and God. I thought it would be good for all of our readers to become familiar with exactly what the Catholic Church has to say on this matter.

The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."

Allow me to begin by saying that this is an article I never dreamed I would ever have to be writing but considering the extensive controversy surrounding this matter, at least in the minds of some of our Protestant brothers and sisters, I felt it necessary to clarify the validity of St. Matthias' apostleship.

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was alloted his share in this ministry. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and 'His office let another take.' So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us - one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place." And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. - Acts 1:15-26

Now the argument of some of our Protestant brothers and sisters goes like this: Peter and the other apostles thought that they were chosing who was to take Judas' place, but they chose incorrectly and this is proven by the fact that Jesus later chose Paul to be an apostle.
 

Apostolic succession has become a hot topic lately on the blog - we’ve had a couple of people suggest it isn’t Biblical, which is completely incorrect. So, I wanted to write a quick article outlining the Scriptural arguments for apostolic succession. I’ve already posted a list of references to apostolic succession in the Bible and the early Church fathers, but this will explain the Scriptural argument in a little more detail.

First an explanation: Apostolic succession is the handing down of the apostle’s position to a new person upon the apostle’s death. The Catholic Church can prove a lineage through the ages that began with the twelve apostles. But does this matter? What does Scripture say about apostolic succession?

Perhaps the most obvious example of apostolic succession begins in Acts:

Acts 1:15-17, 20-26. In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was to guide those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us - one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place." And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

There are a couple of key points with this passage. If there was any apostle whose ‘seat’ you would not replace, wouldn’t it be Judas’? It seems that his seat might not be considered important anymore, however it was still seen as a valid ‘seat,’ so the apostles felt obliged to fill it. Not only that, Peter notes that Judas’ fall and his replacement were both prophecies from the Psalms, so it was foretold that both Judas' fall and his replacement must happen. Also note that in this passage Judas is called an episkopos, which is a bishop, rather than simply a normal priest like the other 120 "brethren."

As many of you may have read, an attorney from Los Angeles has filed heresy charges against presidential candidate John Kerry for advancing the notion that you can be Catholic and pro-abortion. You can read the entire complaint at Defide.com. But specifically, he’s citing one section of Canon Law (essentially the law of the Church):

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
1. §2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

There are a couple of things that could come out of this lawsuit. In the worst case, John Kerry could be excommunicated for persisting in his public message that life is not a fundamental right of a child. Kerry wants to argue that he is personally pro-life, but cannot force his opinion on another person. This is a joke. Imagine a politician claiming that he is personally against slavery or murder, but feels it is unjust to force his opinion on others. If you are truly personally opposed to something as heinous as abortion, slavery, or murder, you force your opinion on others to protect the victim in each crime (abortion is not a victimless crime). Besides which, Kerry is very obviously personally in agreement with the abortion lobby, as can be seen through his speeches at pro-abortion events (Clinton even refused to speak at these events).

Kerry could also be ordered not to receive communion until he publically apologizes and changes his viewpoint - this is probably the more likely outcome given Ratzinger’s recent letter (the case will end up in Ratzinger’s jurisdiction if appealed by the person filing charges). Or the case could be dismissed, which is not very likely given the state of American politics - particularly in regards to Catholic politicians.

I myself agree with the notion behind the lawsuit, but I have to wonder: isn’t this the role of the Bishops? Is this case a way to go around the American bishops and get something done despite their slow reaction time? The Church in her wisdom has always been slow to react - sometimes this is bad and sometimes it is good, but it comes from her understanding that this is still a small issue in one part of the world (and not even the most populous part). As Scripture teaches, sometimes when you pull the weeds up, you uproot good plants as well - Jesus notes that in the end the weeds will be uprooted. Any Catholic opinions on this? I would prefer to see the Bishops handle this serious public issue, but what has begun must be followed through.

God bless,
Jay

My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope that I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road through I may know nothing about it. Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.

- - Thomas Merton Thoughts in Solitude

Thomas,

I thought it would be a good idea to recap, for our own sake, but also for the sake of any other readers trying to follow this discussion, the main points of our discussion thus far. If anything isn't correct please point it out. I will start from your first post and then work forward so we may recover several things. I will put your original questions/objections, as well as any comeback responses, in italics; my replies will be in bold text. For those wishing to read the original discussion please click on the link below:

Why Should You Consider The Catholic Church?

1. I don't think any Protestant has ever said that the Bible is the sole source of Truth and Authority.

- Most mainstream Protestant churches simply make the claim that the Bible is the "ultimate" source of Truth and Authority by which all things must be measured.

2. Truth can be revealed to us by God in any number of ways, through the church (I use lower case "c" to distinguish the entire Christian community of believers which include true Catholics from just merely the capital "C" Catholic Church, as I reject the notion that the Catholic Church is the sole possessor of the truth) and through individual revelation, traditions, etc. Also there are a number of authorities over our lives including the church. The issue isn't "Is the Bible the sole source of truth and authority?", but rather how much credibility should we give other sources?

- I find this train of thought interesting. You seem to be suggesting that "truth" has some sort of hierarchy of degrees of truthfulness. You ask the question of how much credibility we should give other sources of truth. I would say we have to give those sources total credibility if the "truth" revealed by that other source is indeed "true." Assuming that in your mind those other sources are channels of knowing truth, by God, as you initially stated, then they are completely believable if what they reveal is true. Truth is truth. One truth is just as believable as the other since both are equally true.

3. I think that we can all agree here that the Bible is at least a reliable source of Truth.

- How do we know this? What if it isn't? What proofs do we have that it is a reliable source of Truth? To an Atheist it is an "untruth." So again, how do we know that the Bible is a reliable source of Truth?

4. We can also agree that Truth shouldn't contradict itself. So if the Church or anyone else for that matter teaches a doctrine that runs contrary to the Scriptures what should we do? Whose authority is supreme? Or to put it another way, what trumps what?

- I will agree that Truth shouldn't contradict itself; in fact, I'll take it a step further Truth cannot contradict itself. The next part of your comment operates on two assumptions: (1) That we know the Bible is a reliable source of truth (a question for you to answer above) and (2) That the Bible is the measuring stick of all truth, assuming that it is a reliable source of truth. The common appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 won't do for "to say that all inspired writing 'has its uses' is one thing; to say that such a remark means that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote:

It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the Sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although Sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written even when St. Paul wrote this, and none of the Books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the Scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith. - Inspiration, 13 In

The last part of your question is in reference to whose authority is supreme. For now I ask that you be patient, I will address this under the next point.

Titus 3:5. [Jesus] saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit. [my emphasis]

Baptism is a key part of the Christian life, but there are different theories on how Baptism should be performed (we discussed the need for Baptism here). Here I want to address the question of whether Baptism requires the immersion into water of the person being baptized.

It’s actually an interesting discussion because so many protestant groups would say “yes, sprinkling is invalid.” My Southern Baptist pastor used to insist this was true and would rebaptize those who had not been “dunked.” So what’s the problem with requiring immersion? There are two key issues.

First, this is an error of “legalism.” By that I mean this requirement suggests that the power of Baptism lies not in God, but in some ritual procedure. Yes, it is preferred that Baptism be by immersion into water - the Catholic Church agrees - however, this is “preferred” not “required.” This legalism would be akin to me saying that prayer only “works” when you are on your knees (God doesn’t hear you when you aren’t). Sure, the preferred position of prayer is that of Christ in Gethsemani on His knees, but your physical position can’t essentially block the ears of God.

This brings us to the second error: by requiring immersion, we seem to suggest that God can’t work through a drop of water - He can only work through a large pool of water. In other words, we limit the power of God in an odd way. God can cleanse us through a single drop if He so desires, it is the power of God, not the amount of water, through which we are saved.

God has chosen to work through water, but He did not indicate that a certain amount was required. God often uses physical objects for healing purposes - remember the mud that cured the blind and the garment of Jesus (and of Peter in Acts) that healed the sick. But God never suggests that specific amounts of those physical objects must be used - it would start to feel like sorcery if He did!

Ultimately, God did not require baptism by immersion and still does not - He can work with a single drop of water and a repenting man. It’s interesting that often those pushing these requirements are the same who quickly suggest that Jesus didn’t mean it when He said, “You must eat my flesh and drink my blood or your have no life in you.” They are adding words and subtracting meaning.

God bless,
Jay

Heavenly Father,
You are the real foundation of nations, raising them up to serve and care for the people dwelling in their boundaries. I thank you for making me a citizen of this land of freedom and unlimited opportunity - which are the result of its Christian base.
Send forth your Spirit to this country and make it a source of wisdom and strength, order and integrity throughout the world.

Happy 4th of July!

God bless,
Jay

There has been much discussion on this blog about the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Tradition. In all fairness to our readers I felt it necessary to post the Catholic Church's teaching on this matter as found in the Catechism of Catholic Church. I have done this because I feel that it is necessary for both Catholics and Protestants to understand exactly what the Catholic Church believes rather than just what they think Jay, Joe, and/or Dave believes. I will not list the actual quote references throughout the text as it would make this difficult to read. If you need any of them, by all means, let me know. This will be a lengthy post but please take the time to read it.

Article 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth": that is, of Christ Jesus. Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:
God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."

In the apostolic preaching....

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit",
- in writing "by the apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing."