June 2005 Archives

You're sure to learn something from this week's Catholic Carnival: Living the Faith and Scripture. Worth a few minutes of your time.

God bless,
Jay

A new study released last week says that 1/3 of Canadians who have read the Davinci Code believe it’s true. Read it here. 32%? It shows the stunning ignorance of history that’s out there.

For those who haven’t read it, this is what that 32% believes:

Among those readers, 32 per cent believed the story that "a holy bloodline exists and that this secret has been protected through the ages by a dedicated society," the television channel announced yesterday.

In other words, that Christ fathered children with Mary Magdalene.

I would probably be more horrified by the percentage that believe the Left Behind books are factual. This just proves that Christians have a lot of work just teaching their own. If you’ve forgotten, go back and read this post on The Davinci Code and the Left Behind series.

God bless,
Jay

Hat tip to Amy Welborn.

The road and ascent to God, then, necessarily demands a habitual effort to renounce and mortify the appetites; the sooner this mortification is achieved, the sooner the soul reaches the top. But until the appetites are eliminated, a person will not arrive, no matter how much virtue he practices. For he will fail to acquire perfect virtue, which lies in keeping the soul empty, naked, and purified of every appetite. - - St. John of the Cross The Ascent of Mount Carmel

We must work toward holiness every day. Through our struggle, we are freed from sin and become closer to Christ.

God bless,
Jay

We continually argue that the Bible is unconditionally “Catholic” in its thought and arguments. Because of that, there is Scripture that cannot be explained outside of Catholic theology – in other words, if you aren’t Catholic, you can’t comprehend what was meant. Each of these deserve their own explanation, so I have also highlighted the articles we’ve written that refer to the verses.

Let’s start small and work our way up:

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?

At a simple level, this verse suggests that those on earth can help those who are dead by being “baptized” on their behalf. At a deeper level it is clearly Catholic – particularly the notion of helping the dead. For more read Should we pray for the dead? and Purgatory and the Bible.

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.

To a Catholic, these are called “relics,” but to a protestant these are unexplainable. For more read Idolatry! The Catholic Veneration of Icons and Relics and Answering Protestant Objections.

John 20:17-18. Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples . . .

Non-Catholics argue that the Church is wrong on Jesus being an only child. But here, when Jesus tells Mary to get his “brethren,” Mary gets the disciples. This is the Catholic argument – for more see The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: Did Mary have Other Children?.

1 John 5:16-17. If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

All protestants that I’m aware of teach that “sin is sin” and there is no such thing as venial or mortal sin. This verse teaches otherwise. For more on this, read Are there different “levels” of sin?.

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.

Explicit teaching on purgatory in the Bible? Most would say no, but this verse clearly answers the call. For more read Purgatory and the Bible.

Col 1:24-25. Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known.

Catholics understand this verse, since they understand that suffering has redemptive qualities. Since protestants disagree, this verse becomes unexplainable. For more read Why must we Suffer? and The Value of Suffering.

James 2:14. What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can his faith save him?

Suffice it to say that this verse explicitly teaches Catholic theology in terms of salvation. For more read Sola Fides 2: Understanding Faith and Works.

John 6:51-56. "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.”

Along with this goes the oddity (to non-Catholics):

Acts 2:42. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

These are the beginning of the Eucharist. There is more that could go in this post, such as 1 Corinthians 11:27-30, but I’ll start with these. They clearly teach the need for the Eucharist. Read more in This is the Lamb of God Who Takes Away the Sins of the World: Understanding the Eucharist and in Why does Jesus call Himself “Bread”?

I know there are more – feel free to add your favorites in the comments box – but this covers the basics. What are your thoughts?

God bless,
Jay

The newest Catholic Carnival is up. It's worth a few minutes of your time and ends with a request by a non-Catholic for comments on the ESV version of the Bible. If you have any experience with that version, please add your comments.

God bless,
Jay

The newest Carnivals are now online. First, go check out Catholic Carnival 34: The Dismissal over at HerbEly a longtime contributor to the Carnival.

Also, stop by and see the Christian Carnival LXXIV that includes non-Catholic bloggers.

God bless,
Jay

As we’ve explained on this blog, contraception is a sin and always has been. Therefore the Catholic Church condemns use of the birth control pill, the patch, and condoms as it has since the birth of the Church in 33 A.D.

This now is spilling over into Africa. In Africa, as most are aware, there is a severe AIDS crisis; current estimates suggest 10% of the population is HIV-positive and it is now the leading cause of death. So the call is for the Catholic Church to approve the use of condoms to fight the AIDS crisis in Africa. Is this logical? In other words, if the Church approved the use of condoms, would it help stop the AIDS crisis?

There are some inherent myths in the African AIDS crisis that must first be dealt with. Such as:

• Myth: Most of African AIDS is transmitted sexually. Truth: Perhaps as much as 66% is transmitted through contamination primarily in medical or dental procedures.
  
• Myth: Condoms work. Truth: Condoms can’t stop the HIV virus – even conservative estimates put condom failure to stop AIDS at 10%.
  
• Myth: Catholics are spreading AIDS. This myth comes from the fallacy that the Church can stop the AIDS epidemic. Truth: The countries with the highest incidence of AIDS/HIV have a tiny Catholic population. Can the Church convince non-Catholics to use condoms?
  
• Myth: Abstinence can’t work in Africa. Truth: It is working extremely well in Uganda, where the AIDS epidemic is actually subsiding (see below).
  

There are many myths out there, which tend to skew against reason and against Christ’s Church. The truth is, the Church can help stop the spread of AIDS and HIV by teaching abstinence, rather than distributing condoms.

I recently read this article by Brian Saint-Paul that addressed it well. A few highlights:

One approach, of course, would be to explain the Catholic moral/theological position on why contraception is inherently evil. But while absolutely true, that approach isn't terribly convincing to a non-Catholic, let alone a non-Christian. After all, logic and philosophy are easily dismissed as abstractions when human life is involved.
But the debate over condoms in Africa need never get to that point. In fact, the whole matter can be settled without ever bringing in moral theology. You see, the fatal flaw in the pro-condom argument is both simple and devastating: Condoms aren't working to stem AIDS in Africa.
Take for example a March 2004 article in the medical journal, Studies in Family Planning (cited by the Zenit News Agency, June 26, 2004). Titled "Condom Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?," the piece was a meta-review of the scientific literature on the question.
The results shocked condom advocates. In the article, researchers Sanny Chen and Norman Hearst noted that, "In many sub-Saharan African countries, high HIV transmission rates have continued despite high rates of condom use." In fact, they continued, "No clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom distribution."

This is good advice for anyone who is sexually promiscuous: condom’s have a high propensity to fail in preventing disease. He goes on:

But while condoms clearly won't solve the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa (or anywhere else), there is an approach that will: abstinence. Indeed, in African nations — where HIV/AIDS is transmitted almost exclusively through sexual contact — abstinence is the obvious solution.
And better yet, it has been proven effective.
Uganda at one time had the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world. Starting in the mid to late 1980s, their government instituted a program to teach abstinence before marriage and fidelity to one's partner afterwards. They only reluctantly advised condoms for high risk groups (like prostitutes) whom they knew would not accept the other two approaches.
Billboards, radio announcements, print ads, and school programs all promoted the virtues of abstinence and fidelity to prevent HIV/AIDS.
The results were astonishing.
In 1991, the prevalence rate of HIV was 15%. By 2001, it had dropped to 5%. It was the biggest HIV infection reduction in world history.
Among pregnant women, the drop was even more dramatic (as reported by CNS News, January 13, 2003). In 1991, 21.2% of expecting mothers tested positive for HIV. By 2001, the number had plummeted to 6.2%. Compare this with the 2001 numbers from Kenya (15%), Zimbabwe (32%), and Botswana (38%). All three countries focus on condom distribution, and all three countries continue to see their rates rise.

Go read the whole article – it’s one of the better articles addressing this problem.

God bless,
Jay

Many protestants don’t realize that they have a different Bible than Catholics (many Catholics miss this as well). The protestant Bible only contains 39 Old Testament books, 7 less than the Catholic Bible and two other books are missing a few chapters or verses. Why is this?

Where we got the Bible
The story starts with the origins of Scripture. There were several Old Testament versions floating around at the Birth of Christianity. Some groups recognized only the first 5 books of the Bible, which are commonly called the Torah or Law. Another group recognized only the Torah and the Prophets. But the most common version of the Old Testament, which was accepted by virtually all of the Jewish people, is the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes the Torah, the prophets, and all of the other Old Testament books – including the seven only in the Catholic Bible. Those seven books include Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Baruch. These seven books were written a little later than the others (the Old Testament was compiled over many, many years) and became known as deutocanonical, which means ‘second canon.’

In 70 A.D. the plot thickened. The Romans invaded Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish temple. Because of this, the Jewish authorities met in Javneh in 90 A.D. to re-establish the canon. They excluded the Gospels and threw out every Old Testament book that referred to the Romans as a friend of the Jews (this was the worst imaginable travesty to faithful Jews). But remember, by this time the Christians had become the true church of Christ, thus the Jews did not have the authority to change the books of Scripture. In addition, if we accept their decision at this council, how can we include the Gospels? These were also condemned. (Note also that some Jews still include the deuterocanonical books in their canon of Scripture.)

The New Testament began being written around 55 A.D. (Matthew was the first to start). But the last New Testament book completed wasn’t until after 100 A.D. (Revelations). Remember that Christ was crucified in 33 A.D. During this time, individual churches would have access to some Scriptural text, but probably not all. There was no consensus over which books were Scripture and which were not – several books were floating around that we do not consider Scripture today, such as the Gospel of Thomas, etc. Over the next few hundred years a general consensus was reached concerning which books were Scripture. But there were still discrepancies, for example some people did not acknowledge Revelation as Scripture.

So in 393 A.D., over 350 years after the Crucifixion, the pope called a council of all the Roman Catholic bishops. Together they determined the official canon of Scripture that we now call the Bible (which translates as “book”). This council, called the Council of Hippo offers us the first definition of the Bible and lists the exact books in the Catholic Bible as we know them. This was reaffirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. and again at the Council of Trent in 1548 (this last was in response to the challenge by Martin Luther). From the definition in 393 A.D. until Luther entered the world stage, the Catholic Bible was the only Christian Bible.

Martin Luther’s Influence
Much like the Jesus Seminar, Martin Luther was very skeptical of some parts of Scripture. In particular, he didn’t like some books of the Old Testament that clearly contradicted his interpretation of Scripture. For example, Tobit and Maccabees teach that we should pray for the dead; 2 Maccabees 15:14 (which is alluded to in Revelation 6:9-10) teaches the intercession of the Saints; Tobit teaches the intercession of Angels. But Martin Luther had a convenient way out of this problem: the Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament) of his day did not include the Apocryptha (this was a new term to denigrate the authority of these Scriptures). So Luther effectively changed the Bible – despite the fact that Scripture condemns those who do so.

So, in 1520 we have the first Bible printed that separates out the deuterocanonical books. Initially all protestant Bibles were still printed with these books included. In fact, in England a law was passed that threatened the death penalty for anyone printing a Bible without them – even the original King James version included the “Apocryptha.” But Luther, Calvin and others taught that these books were not equivalent to other Scriptures. It wasn’t until 1827 that the first Bible was printed without them. Luther also wanted to throw out several New Testament books, including Hebrews, James (which contradicts his thought), Jude, and Revelation. In fact, he moved these books to the back of the protestant Bible because of his dislike of them (they remain at the back of most protestant translations). He also wanted to remove the Old Testament books of Job and Jonah (he considered them “fables”).

Should we read the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books?
I think there is far more evidence supporting the validity of these books. Here’s a quick summary:

• Out of the 350 Old Testament citations in the New Testament, 300 come from the Septuagint, which included the deuterocanonical books.
  
• The earliest Greek copies of the Old Testament we have (circa 450 A.D.) include these books (there are two such Greek copies).
  
• The early Church Fathers (even from before the Council of Hippo) refer to these books as Scripture (they don’t suggest any difference between these books and the rest of the Old Testament). These men weren’t perfect and there are a few that did separate the deuterocanonical books out, but not many. Only St. Jerome suggested they might not be Scriptural (again, pre-Council of Hippo). Later in his life, St. Jerome defended the deuterocanonical books as Scripture.
  
• Jesus and His apostles never denounced the Septuagint or even suggested that it was erroneous. It was the predominant translation of His day, so if it included incorrect books you would expected Christ himself or one of the twelve to condemn it. But they choose not to and instead quoted from it.
  
• There are several New Testament verses which are considered paraphrases of deuterocanonical passages. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:29 references 2 Maccabees 12:44 (this is a particularly problematic passage for protestants); Hebrews 11:35 references 2 Maccabees 7 (the only place in the Old Testament where someone is tortured as described in Hebrews); and Revelation 8:3-4 references Tobit 12:15.
  
• Finally, if the books had not contradicted Luther’s new translation of Scripture, it is unlikely they would have been removed. They had to be removed in order for Luther’s new “church” to be even partially believable.
  

Conclusion
Clearly, the deuterocanonical books were accepted by Christ and His apostles in the Septuagint as they were by the earliest Christians. The primary definition of the Bible as we know it includes these books and for a millennia all Christians accepted it. Why should it change? Martin Luther had invented a new theology that was not consistent with Scripture as we know it, so he had to remove these books in order to make his theology palatable. Is that a good enough reason for you?

The facts stand far more in favor of these books than against them. For more reading, see:

• Understanding the Apocryphta
  
• Where we Got the Bible
  

God bless,
Jay

In order to approach this topic, it is essential for us to understand what we mean by the term relativism.

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. This means that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all political movements, etc., are truths that are relative to the individual. Under the umbrella of relativism whole groups of perspectives are categorized. In obvious terms, some are:
cognitive relativism (truth) - Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth.
moral/ethical relativism - all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.
situational relativism - that ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation.

Within the ranks of both Catholicism and Protestantism we find the effects of relativism, particularly in terms of morality. In other articles we have discussed moral relativism, so I won't make that the main focus of this article. I want to look at how relativism has affected Catholicism specifically and Protestantism as a whole.

Just an administrative note: Join our email list (to the right) and you'll get periodic updates of the latest articles and interesting posts. Not too much - just enough to keep you updated.

God bless,
Jay