Can You Pray For Me?

Often I get flack for praying to Mary by protestants who falsely understand how intercessory prayers work or understand what prayer is.  The verse that gets quoted to a lot in a rebuttal against my Marian devotion and countless other people’s”

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,”

– 1 Timothy 2:5

Protestant, prepare to be surprised.  Are you holding on to your seat, good you’ll need to!! Contrary to popular belief this is exactly what the Catholic faith teaches that there is only one mediator between God and man.

Earlier in the chapter St. Paul demands that supplications, prayers and intercessions are to be made for all men.”  A synonym for intercession is mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 states this to further proof my point:

“but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. ²⁵ Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”

This verse refers us back to Jesus being our one mediator ad the right hand of the father but it lists him as an intercessor.  Christ has his high priesthood forever because he is eternal.

Christ is only one mediator but St. Paul demands that all Christians to be mediators or intercessors for one another, alive on earth or in heaven.   Let us examine carefully the first word in verse five when it stats “For there is only one God and mediator.  This word for is being used again in the seventh verse, he states “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” An essential part of that is being a mediator. St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world! What is an apostle if not a mediator? Doesn’t the word state we are all apostles?

This is not a contradiction! Let us look at another example, the Bible says  “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.”  On the contrary we can look at two verses

1.  James 3:1

“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”

2. Ephesians 4:11

“So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,”

These two verses tell us that we have many teachers.  The green noun for this is didaskoloi. These many teachers do not take away from Christ as one teacher and mediator, they are Christ on this earth and they are teachers and mediators in him.  It is as if we are mediators of salvation sometimes too when we witness and bring someone to faith, it isn’t us but its him who works through us.    As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

The church is one united body as we profess in the creeds.  There is no one dead who is in Christ Jesus.  If you are a believer you have eternal life.

Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.

In conclusion, we are commanded to pray for one another. Praying for someone is showing that you love them.  Praying to a saint especially Mary is biblical as well because we are all alive in Christ and there for we can ask a saint to pray for us and then the saint prays to God and the prayers of a just man are heard.

The title of mediatrix in terms of Mary however arises from her yes in the incarnation and the redemption of man (Luke 1:38). Wills are not raped, people are not forced, we are not coaxed.  God is not a violator of man or wills.  Mary was so so intimate with God in such a special way.  She became the Theotokos or God barer and the new Eve.  The mother of all living.  We can see this more concretely when Jesus said “Behold your mother” and gave everything he had yes including his life and his mother to us and adopting us as part of his entire family as God as our father, Mary our mother, and Jesus our elder brother who is the first born of all creation.

“Therefore, he calls her Eden or virgin earth, because this virgin (the earthly paradise) is a type for another Virgin. Just as the original earth produced paradise’s garden for us without any seed, the Virgin gave birth to light which is Christ, for us and without any seed from man”  

“A virgin expelled us from paradise, and through another Virgin we arrive at eternal life.”

“As by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved, a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience”

-Irenaeus (A.D. 120–200) wrote, (Against Heresies, 3, 22, 19).

Eve gave way to the fall and Adam caused the fall in the same way Mary made it possible that we may be redeemed and Jesus caused our redemption.

With out Mary there would have been no mediator.  Mary is a conduit of graces in a special way because she bore the savior and was given the ultimate graces to say yes.  The church always taught that only Christ saves.

As I previously mentioned we are mediators in a sense.  The definition of mediator is someone who goes between.  In 1 Timothy 2:5 it refers to Jesus as the “ONE mediator.”  The greek for one is heis, the significance of that in English is first or even primary.  This does not denote anything.

A common fear or over reaction is that us mediating diminishes the role of Christ as the supreme mediator.  It actually glorifies the the entire trinity.  Not only does us being mediators and the saints mediating glorify the entire trinity but it pleases them because it shows love and Christ is love and he shows love through praying for us as he did in the garden and he teaches us to love and furthermore it fulfills Christ.   Not only is the earlier glorifying or pleasing or what have you, but the scriptures also say that he who loves intensely covers a multitude of his sins so it is also good for us. Another reason why this glorifies Christ is because he gave us his mother in the end as our own mother showing his ultimate selflessness mercy.

For further resources on Mary please look at

1. Catholicism Delivers the Truth on Your Mom
2. The Assumption of Mary
3. Mary’s perpetual virginity

What The Purgatory is This About?

You guessed it folks, this post is all about the doctrine of purgatory.  Recently I had posted up a story on Instagram and my Facebook messenger app and snapchat asking others to ask questions about the true faith Catholicism.  One person reached out to me and asked me what is the proof of purgatory.

We must first define what is purgatory before ever defending it to set a premise.  We must set the premise, most often Catholic doctrine and things of Catholicism are so badly misrepresented that often the wrong definition is given, this is a sad thing.  In order to defend something right we must rightly define that thing in which we are defending.

The following is from the Baltimore Catechism which is organized as a series of questions followed by answers.

Q. 1381. What is Purgatory?

A. Purgatory is the state in which those suffer for a time who die guilty of venial sins, or without having satisfied for the punishment due to their sins.

Q. 1382. Why is this state called Purgatory?

A. This state is called Purgatory because in it the souls are purged or purified from all their stains; and it is not, therefore, a permanent or lasting state for the soul.

Q. 1383. Are the souls in Purgatory sure of their salvation?

A. The souls in Purgatory are sure of their salvation, and they will enter heaven as soon as they are completely purified and made worthy to enjoy that presence of God which is called the Beatific Vision.

Q. 1384. Do we know what souls are in Purgatory, and how long they have to remain there?

A. We do not know what souls are in Purgatory nor how long they have to remain there; hence we continue to pray for all persons who have died apparently in the true faith and free from mortal sin. They are called the faithful departed.

Q. 1385. Can the faithful on earth help the souls in Purgatory?

A. The faithful on earth can help the souls in Purgatory by their prayers, fasts, alms, deeds; by indulgences, and by having Masses said for them.

Q. 1386. Since God loves the souls in Purgatory, why does He punish them?

A. Though God loves the souls in Purgatory, He punishes them because His holiness requires that nothing defiled may enter heaven and His justice requires that everyone be punished or rewarded according to what he deserves.

The following is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church compiled under St. Pope John Paul II.

Purgatory Is Necessary Purification

Before we enter into full communion with God, every trace of sin within us must be eliminated and every imperfection in our soul must be corrected

At the General Audience of Wednesday, 4 August 1999, following his catecheses on heaven and hell, the Holy Father reflected on Purgatory. He explained that physical integrity is necessary to enter into perfect communion with God therefore “the term purgatory does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence”, where Christ “removes … the remnants of imperfection”.

1. As we have seen in the previous two catecheses, on the basis of the definitive option for or against God, the human being finds he faces one of these alternatives:  either to live with the Lord in eternal beatitude, or to remain far from his presence.

For those who find themselves in a condition of being open to God, but still imperfectly, the journey towards full beatitude requires a purification, which the faith of the Church illustrates in the doctrine of “Purgatory” (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1030-1032).

To share in divine life we must be totally purified

2. In Sacred Scripture, we can grasp certain elements that help us to understand the meaning of this doctrine, even if it is not formally described. They express the belief that we cannot approach God without undergoing some kind of purification.

According to Old Testament religious law, what is destined for God must be perfect. As a result, physical integrity is also specifically required for the realities which come into contact with God at the sacrificial level such as, for example, sacrificial animals (cf. Lv 22: 22) or at the institutional level, as in the case of priests or ministers of worship (cf. Lv 21: 17-23). Total dedication to the God of the Covenant, along the lines of the great teachings found in Deuteronomy (cf. 6: 5), and which must correspond to this physical integrity, is required of individuals and society as a whole (cf. 1 Kgs 8: 61). It is a matter of loving God with all one’s being, with purity of heart and the witness of deeds (cf. ibid., 10: 12f.)

The need for integrity obviously becomes necessary after death, for entering into perfect and complete communion with God. Those who do not possess this integrity must undergo purification. This is suggested by a text of St Paul. The Apostle speaks of the value of each person’s work which will be revealed on the day of judgement and says:  “If the work which any man has built on the foundation [which is Christ] survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3: 14-15).

3. At times, to reach a state of perfect integrity a person’s intercession or mediation is needed. For example, Moses obtains pardon for the people with a prayer in which he recalls the saving work done by God in the past, and prays for God’s fidelity to the oath made to his ancestors (cf. Ex 32: 30, 11-13). The figure of the Servant of the Lord, outlined in the Book of Isaiah, is also portrayed by his role of intercession and expiation for many; at the end of his suffering he “will see the light” and “will justify many”, bearing their iniquities (cf. Is 52: 13-53, 12, especially vv. 53: 11).

Psalm 51 can be considered, according to the perspective of the Old Testament, as a synthesis of the process of reintegration:  the sinner confesses and recognizes his guilt (v. 3), asking insistently to be purified or “cleansed” (vv. 2, 9, 10, 17) so as to proclaim the divine praise (v. 15).

Purgatory is not a place but a condition of existence

4. In the New Testament Christ is presented as the intercessor who assumes the functions of high priest on the day of expiation (cf. Heb 5: 7; 7: 25). But in him the priesthood is presented in a new and definitive form. He enters the heavenly shrine once and for all, to intercede with God on our behalf (cf. Heb 9: 23-26, especially, v. 24). He is both priest and “victim of expiation” for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 Jn 2: 2).

Jesus, as the great intercessor who atones for us, will fully reveal himself at the end of our life when he will express himself with the offer of mercy, but also with the inevitable judgement for those who refuse the Father’s love and forgiveness.

This offer of mercy does not exclude the duty to present ourselves to God, pure and whole, rich in that love which Paul calls a “[bond] of perfect harmony” (Col 3: 14).

5. In following the Gospel exhortation to be perfect like the heavenly Father (cf. Mt 5: 48) during our earthly life, we are called to grow in love, to be sound and flawless before God the Father “at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints” (1 Thes 3: 12f.). Moreover, we are invited to “cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit” (2 Cor 7: 1; cf. 1 Jn 3: 3), because the encounter with God requires absolute purity.

Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church’s teaching on purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ who removes from them the remnants of imperfection (cf. Ecumenical Council of Florence, Decretum pro Graecis:  DS 1304; Ecumenical Council of Trent, Decretum de iustificatione:  DS 1580; Decretum de purgatorio:  DS 1820).

It is necessary to explain that the state of purification is not a prolungation of the earthly condition, almost as if after death one were given another possibility to change one’s destiny. The Church’s teaching in this regard is unequivocal and was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council which teaches:  “Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed (cf. Heb 9: 27), we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth’ (Mt 22: 13 and 25: 30)” (Lumen gentium, n. 48).

6. One last important aspect which the Church’s tradition has always pointed out should be reproposed today:  the dimension of “communio”. Those, in fact, who find themselves in the state of purification are united both with the blessed who already enjoy the fullness of eternal life, and with us on this earth on our way towards the Father’s house (cf. CCC, n. 1032).

Just as in their earthly life believers are united in the one Mystical Body, so after death those who live in a state of purification experience the same ecclesial solidarity which works through prayer, prayers for suffrage and love for their other brothers and sisters in the faith. Purification is lived in the essential bond created between those who live in this world and those who enjoy eternal beatitude.

To the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors the Holy Father said: 

I am pleased to greet the English-speaking visitors and pilgrims present at today’s Audience, especially those from England, Ireland, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Japan and the United States. Upon all of you I invoke the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Happy summer holidays to you all!

 

Now we have properly defined the doctrine of purgatory the proving of the doctrine must commence by first examining the scriptures and the church fathers for we do not attest the scriptures to be sufficient and the sole authority in faith and reason.  We sit on a three legged stool of tradition, scripture, and magisterial teachings.

The Biblical Proof:

Scripture is blatantly clear on the state of who enters heaven.  It states that nothing unclean shall enter heaven.  Here are the chapter and verses:

1. Hab 1:13

“Your eyes are too pure to behold evil,
    and you cannot look on wrongdoing;
why do you look on the treacherous,
    and are silent when the wicked swallow
    those more righteous than they?”

1. Matthew 5:8

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.”

1. Revelation 21:27

“Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

The first place to look: Old Testament 

We make some interesting discoveries if we scan the Old Testament.  We find  2 Maccabees 12:39-46:

“ And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,  (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.  It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”

In this section of sacred scripture we find that Maccabeus and members of his hebraic military forces were collecting dead rotting bodies that have been slaughtered in battle.  They find that the bodies were carrying idols that jews were forbid to wear (v40), Judas and his friends came to the realization that through prayer they died as an atonement or offering for their sin.  As a result the men turned to prayer asking that their sin may be blotted out.  He provided a sin offering (which today is still being offered in the church through the mass when we represent the unbloodied sacrifice of calvary) and sent it to Jerusalem (in which we send the sin offering Jesus Christ to the heavenly Jerusalem).  The scripture commends this and says they acted very well and honorable.

There are immediately two objections that the anti-catholic makes.

1. They do not accept the inspiration of Maccabees

2. The men in Maccabees committed idolatry, which in Catholic theology is a sin and if you are Catholic you would suffer the eternal pains of hell and there for purgatory must be eliminated.

The Catholic Counterstrike: 

1. Rejection of the canonicity of Maccabees

Rejecting the inspiration of Maccabees does not take away from the historical value at all.  This book of scripture helps us in seeing that the jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead before the coming of Christ.  The Jewish faith is what Jesus and the apostles believed in, cherished, loved, and were raised with.  The Holy Spirit was leading the faith.  This is what Jesus says:

“Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

• Matthew 12:32

The words of our lord state that there are most sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed. Let us say Jesus was trying to condemn the teaching, he was doing a terrible job at it.  He would have gone out and said something blatantly.

2.    The men in Maccabees committed idolatry, which in Catholic theology is a sin and if you are Catholic you would suffer the eternal pains of hell and there for purgatory must be eliminated.

Careful exegesis and reading will lead us to the fact that these men were carrying sacred tokens of Jamina.  A modern day example of this would be so close to a Christian athlete preforming some sort of ritual of the superstitious realm before going into a game. Even this would be idolatry which would be a mortal sin for us.  For the jews this was a venial sin.  The Jewish frame of thought in this time period was that there were multiple gods but there was a God who was above all other gods.  Anyway, good Catholics like a good Jew would know to pray for the souls of who have died.

The poofs of purgatory continued in the New Testament 

1. Plainer Text

Jesus is so crystal clear in Matthew 5:24-25 when he talks about purgatory when he states:

” leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison.”

One interpretation we could look to is Terullian’s interpretation  in De Anima 58 written in AD 208:

” it is most fitting that the soul, without waiting for the flesh, be punished for what it did without the partnership of the flesh . . . if we understand that prison of which the Gospel speaks to be Hades, and if we interpret the last farthing to be the light offense which is to be expiated there before the resurrection, no one will doubt that the soul undergoes some punishments in Hades, without prejudice to the fullness of the resurrection, after which recompense will be made through the flesh also.”

(The Soul, 58,1)
This teaching parabolic, utilizing prison and the necessary and dire need for penance as it shows forth a metaphor for suffering of the purgatorial kind for lesser offenses or transgressions represented by the “kodrenates” in the original language which is penny for verse 26.  Most protestant traditions will state that Jesus is giving an example for life and has nothing to do with purgatory.

Protestantism as a whole like its arguments are week especially when put into fuller context.  In this chapter Jesus is going through the Beatitudes or the blesseds and is talking either about heaven (v 20), hell (vv 29-30) and laying down the framework for the theology of mortal and venial sins  mortal being (v 22) and venial being (v 19), in this context heaven is the goal (vv3-12).   Jesus makes this very and abundantly clear when he says if you do not love your enemies what rewards will you have (V46).  These rewards are so painstakingly obvious that the rewards are not for this life but the next.   (Vv 6:1 and 6:19) and this is later echoed through the letter of St. Peter who tells us that our treasures are in heaven.

Scripture in at least two places states that we must view it in its full context which is life to come in the next world.

 

1. John 20:31

“ But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah,^[b] the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.”

2.  James 1:17

“Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.”

We can know that scripture does not contradict its self and that the entire net frame of scripture comes together and supports one another.  Coming to that conclusion we may see that the sermon on the mount had an “heavenly” emphasis.

Another proof text is I Peter 3:19

“ in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison”

The catholic position makes even more sense.  He ascended into the prison or the holding place in which he detained the souls of the Old Testament.  Phulake which is Greek for a temporary holding place is used so many a numerous times in the New Testament.  The ENTIRE New Testament is clear in stating that this is peaking in the next world not this world.

2. Plainest Text

^“11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. ¹² Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— ¹³ the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. ¹⁴ If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. ¹⁵ If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.”

                                                        –   1 Corinthians 3:11-15

It would be most honest in all meanings of the word not to reject that this text speaks of God’s judgement.  The works of the faithful are to be tested after death through a flame as an agent which purifies.  We can see this in multiple places of scripture.

1. Mal 3:2-3
2. Matthew 3:11
3. Mark 9:49

We can also see that scripture attests to the fact that the fire consumes in atlas two places off of the top of my head.

1. Matthew 3:12
2. 1 Thessalonians 7-8

Therefor an individual may come to the proper conclusion that this is all a symbol or metaphor for God’s right and just judgement.  Some of the works here are being burned up, consumed, or purified.  According to what is it being purified? It is being purified according to (greek hopoiov- of what sort) or quality.

This most certainly can not be heaven because there are various forms of imperfections and stated earlier the scriptures clearly attest that nothing unclean shall enter heaven. This can not be hell because souls are being saved and hell is eternal.  This is clearly and painstakingly obvious purgatory.

Usually in my dialogue if it can be called that with protestants the main rebuttal is that there is no mention of the word purgatory in scripture as well as the purifying of sin.  The only thing that can be texted is the works.  They attest that St. Paul or scriptures try to place the emphasis on the rewards or the unperashable crown of glory the believer will attain. The main contradiction is that their WORKS go through but they escape it.

For every rebuttal they throw we’ve got a good answer and then some.

Sins are bad and even worse wicked works.  Examine the scriptures look at Therese three texts:

1. Matthew 7:21-23

²¹ “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²² On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ ²³ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” 

1. John 8:40

“As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.”

1. Galatians 5:19-21

¹⁹ Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, ²⁰ idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, ²¹ envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Why would these works need purification if they do not represent sins and imperfections?  Why would they need purification? A work must be cleansed with the human person for the works and the words show forth what is stored up in the heart and where they reap from.  We are in one sense what we do when it comes to morality. Works are not detatched from the person.

The idea that works being burned up separate from the soul or the worker that commits that act contradicts the text.  A clear reading of the text states plainly in the plainest matter that the works will be tested by fire and if the worker survives or is burned up he may have eternal life or suffer loss.  The kicker is when St. Paul states: HE will be saved as only though a fire. (greek diapuros)- the works of the individual and the individual its self will be go through that cleansing fire that “HE!!!!!”  might definitely have salvation and enter into heaven.  That sounds exactly similar to purgatory.

 

CHURCH FATHER QUOTES ON PURGATORY:

1. Tertullian (155-220) “We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]” (Tertullian, The Crown 3:3).
2. Chrysostom (349-407), “Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them” (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5).
3. Augustine (354-430), “Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment,” (The City of God 21:13).

 

Refuting a Claim For Sola Scriptura

I was recently on an online forum debating Sola Scriptura with a protestant and the protestant quoted this verse as a claim for Sola Scriptura being biblical and accurate.  The quote was:

“Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.”

                                                            – 1 Corinthians 4:6

Here are some reasons why this verse was never used to promulgate Sola Scriptura

1. Reformers 

None of the reformers tried to attempt to use this verse for the promulgation or vindication of the case of Sola Scriptura.  John Calvin in his commentaries never stated that this was scripture, in fact he stated what the statement “what is written” was in reference to an old testament quote.

  2.  Commentaries

Most commentaries refer to the “going beyond” as what is in the book of life (Ex. 32:32-33, Rev. 20:12).  This would be in consistency of the rest of the teachings of scripture especially if one were to enact typology or covenantial theology.  With in the context of 1 Corinthians this would mean divine judgment because St. Paul does exhort the Corinthians to let it be left up to the book of life and not how people are to be judged.  He urges the Corinthians to stop speculating on how people will be judged.

Why it is not advocating Sola Scriptura

St. Paul was not laying down the frame work of Sola Scriptura nor was he condoning it.  He would be going against scripture by doing so because he gives the church authority and claims that the church has all truth and is the pillar of truth.  4 of the premises would have been inconsistent with his theology

(1) Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings.

No one would agree either Protestant or Catholic that the Old Testament is all that we need or sufficient in authority for all matters in doctrine.  Besides, the Protestants would be condemned double because the Apostles and the first century church used the deuterocanonical texts that are present in the Catholic bible that protestants removed.  We see that the first century church used the deuterocanonical texts as an authority in documents such as the didache and other first century patristical writings that were present in that time, besides all first century Christians knew that outside of the Old Testament the jews had a magesterium filled with a high priest, san hedron, rabbis, scribes, and pharisees and used the Talmud.

 

(2) accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56).

this would mean all New Testament books written after the year 56 would not qualify under the 1 Corinthians 4:6 guideline. Hence, John’s Gospel, Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation would all have to be jettisoned as non-authoritative.

(3) accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written. 

This premise or option fails for one of many reasons, one being that in order for the doctrine to be biblical there must be a clear and blatant understanding definition in the Bible that the Bible is sufficient and everything else is to be disregarded.  The other definition must be present in a bible verse that  the scripture is superior to oral tradition. There are no such verses. 1 Corinthians 4:6 is not an acceptation.

(4) the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.

This option or premise is indefensible because it contradicts St. Paul’s other writings when he says

“Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Thess. 2:15).

In order for 1 Corinthians 4:6 to be true and support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura St. Paul would be contradicting himself.

If there would be an ounce of truth as this being St. Paul using this to promulgate the doctrine of Sola Scriptura there would be a few major contradictions and this wouldn’t fit the frame work of history.

1. Unity 

Paul went to the apostles after his redemption and time in Saudia Arabia and presented his gospel to the apostles to see if it was acceptable. This shows that the church did not run off of a book but rather that the foundations of the church is apostolic and that Christ did not find a church based off of the apostles.

In 1 Corinthians the entire overlying theme of the epistle was unity. If Paul would have advocated for Sola Scriptura he would be in conflict with the rest of the apostles.  Most of the apostles did not write a single line of scripture.  The deposit of faith was not by words on a page but by oral deposition.   St. Paul wouldn’t even be at unity with himself or his letter than.

The flimsy case that sola scriptura is promoted and laid down and out by Paul is furthermore weakened by his comments in 1 Corinthians 11:2

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.”

He praised the Corinthians because they held fast to oral traditions just as he had commanded them to as a bishop.  The church of Corinth never ever had received at that time New Testament scriptures.  Prior all of the deposit of faith comprised of oral traditions.

 

2. None of the Apostles taught sola scriptura 

St. John stated in his first epistle   “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3 John 13). A few questions to ask is, why would the apostle emphasize his preference for oral Tradition over written Tradition (a preference he reiterates in 2 John 12) if, as proponents of sola scriptura assert, Scripture is superior to oral Tradition?

 

If St. Paul included sola scriptura with the other doctrines which were part of the entire plan of God (in sense of  accepting as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing [scripture] and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written. ) why didn’t he state it?  “Now that I’ve written you this letter, you can disregard my two years worth of oral teachings and consider this document to be your sole authority”? Nowhere in his epistles does Paul even hint at such a thing.

Think about this:

St. Paul said, “I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God” (Acts 20:27). This statement destroys sola scriptura. St.Paul remained in Ephesus for over two years teaching the faith as it states:

“all the inhabitants of the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:10) Although this is true the epistle to the Ephesians is only a small three or four page epistle.  It would be asinine  to think we should just go off of that when that epistle could not even scratch the surface of all the doctrines he taught.

Look at these quotes:

1. St Irenaeus of Lyons [A.D. 140-202]

A: “When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce.“ – AH, 3, 2, 1

B: “But, again, when we refer them to that Tradition which originates from the Apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of Priests in the Churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the Priests, but even than the Apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. … It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition.” – AH, 3, 2, 2

C: “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the Apostles instituted Bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [Gnostic heretics] rave about.” – AH, 3, 3, 1

D: “Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy Priests, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures. For the Church has been planted as a garden in this world; therefore says the Spirit of God, ‘Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden’ that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord.” – AH, 5, 20, 2

E: Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the Apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the Tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important questionamong us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the Apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the Tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?” – AH, 3, 4, 1

(where the arrows are is where there is to be more attention to be payed)

2. Vincent of Lerins in Commonitoria [435]

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

It was not a subject of discussion in any early Church councils, nor was it mentioned in any of the many creeds formulated by the early Church.

We must remember that the notion that just as Jesus ascended the Bible descended is false and we must remember that the entire bible got put together in 397 AD in the Council of Hippo.

For more resources on refuting the foolish claim of Sola Scripture you may click on this link:

https://defendingrome.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/being-a-weekend-warrior/

 

 

The Papacy

In honor of today’s feast the chair of St. Peter I awoke moved by the Holy Spirit to write about this topic.  This feast commemorates Christ’s choosing Peter to sit in his place as the servant-authority of the whole Church.  In this post I will be using typology and covenantal theology in order to prove papacy. I will be journeying through the scriptures to prove  the papacy.  But first I musta dress in a quick point the counter arguments

The anti-Catholic will quote Eph. 2:20 and 1 Pet. 2:4-8 these verses do not disprove anything about Peter being the foundation of the church.  Christ is the principle and Peter is the secondary as are his successors that will remain on earth as the foundation that can be scene.  Peter can be a foundation because Christ is a cornerstone.

The New Testament has five different places where it states the foundation for the church and of the church.

1. Eph. 2:20

“ built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.“

No one cannot take  one singular metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. One must respect and harmonize both senses of the word of foundation.

Let us commence though.

“The new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed.” -St. Augustine

We can see something called prefigurement, how things take shape and form before they are fully revealed and give us hints to whats coming.  The Apostles used the Old Testament to prove their point about Christ and used imagery and verses from the Old Testament to teach about Christ.

Here are verses prefiguring the papacy in the old testament

1.  (Isaiah 22.19-23)

““I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your post. On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house.”

The fulfillment: 

Matthew 16:18-20

“¹⁸ And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. ¹⁹ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” ²⁰ Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

 

A  things to look at is

1. The Rock 

Let me first start by pointing out what a few highly respected protestant scholars have stated:

A: Baptist scholar D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:

[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.

B: Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Cullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:

The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.

From the very beginning Christ had a special mission for Simon. At the very beginning of his ministry he immediately gave Simon the name change to Peter, which means rock. (John 1:42).  We can see preeminence of that in the Old Testament when Abraham was called a rock in Isaiah 51:1-2

“Listen to me, you that pursue righteousness,

   you that seek the Lord.

Look to the rock from which you were hewn,

   and to the quarry from which you were dug.

2 Look to Abraham your father

   and to Sarah who bore you;

for he was but one when I called him,

   but I blessed him and made him many.”

You can see that Abraham was the rock (Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha).  Only God was called “rock”. The name was never used as a popper name. Given a new name meant that the status of he person changed and the job they had to do was very important.

For example:

1. Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5),

2.  Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28)
3. Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34),
4.  the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to     Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7).

No Jew was ever called “rock”.  There were examples where names were taken from nature to describe the person or to give them new names for instance Deborah  (“bee,” Gen. 35:8), and Rachel (“ewe,” Gen. 29:16), Rock was never used but other names were attributed from nature such ad the sons of thunder referring to St. John and James, this was regularly used in place of their other names.  In Simon though Peter definitely replaced the old when he went from Simon Bar-Jonah to his new name Kephas (Greek:Petros).

Anti-Catholics often use greek as a means of rebuttal by saying that Peter is the small stone in greek while Petra is the literal meaning of rock.  If this is so why would Christ give a feminine name to a man?  That is like giving a son the name of Josephine or Josephina when his real name is Joseph and it is supposed to be that. Why isn’t he named Petra is the greek is correct and that interpetation is correct?

Hold up! Christ did not speak in Greek.  He spoke an ancient language called Aramaic, the language of Palestine at that time.  The name for rock was kepha which Jesus called Peter in every day speech.  One instance would be John 1:42

” 42 He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).”

Later he stated in Matthew 16:!6

” You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church.”

 

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas“). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

2.   the keys

The keys represent the power or the authority Peter had.  Peter had the keys of the kingdom.  He was given all authority.  It is if someone said to you “I’m leaving but here are my keys please take care of my house.”

Although Luther is not an authority let us look at what a deformer or more commonly and falsely known as a reformer has said:

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.” [Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, pp. 365-366]

2. Deuteronomy 17:8-12

“ If a judicial decision is too difficult for you to make between one kind of bloodshed and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another—any such matters of dispute in your towns—then you shall immediately go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose, ⁹ where you shall consult with the levitical priests and the judge who is in office in those days; they shall announce to you the decision in the case. ¹⁰ Carry out exactly the decision that they announce to you from the place that the Lord will choose, diligently observing everything they instruct you. ¹¹ You must carry out fully the law that they interpret for you or the ruling that they announce to you; do not turn aside from the decision that they announce to you, either to the right or to the left. ¹² As for anyone who presumes to disobey the priest appointed to minister there to the Lord your God, or the judge, that person shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.”

The fulfillment: 

Matthew 18:15-18

““If another member of the church^[a] sins against you,^[b] go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.^{[c] 16} But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. ¹⁷ If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. ¹⁸ Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

3. Exodus 28

Exodus 28 speaks of the priestly vestments and speaks about a hiegherarch of priests but mentions one high priest who has all of the power which is Aron.  This shows the cabinet and the prime ministerial role of the high priest later to be fulfilled I an everlasting covenant in Christ’s church.   The high priest has the Urm and the Thurman in which he judges matters.  In Exodus 28 you have supreme power and ordinances over him and the generations to come.

The royal steward is mentioned in Isaish 22 which is a prophetic book is mentioned in many other places of the Bible.  (e.g. 1 Kings 4:1-6; 18:3; 2 Kings 15:5; 18:18, 37; 19:2),  about this unique office. Something to be noted would be the key that the prime minister would have to open doors, close doors, he wore special robes of honor and special priestly vestments (Lev 8:7).  His office was not done at death but was to be filled by a successor.

We also see still in the old covenant that there is a seat of Moses being spoken of.  Remember the old covenant does not end when Jesus comes onto the scene or when the New Testament begins at chapter one of Matthew, but rather it is the beginning of the end.  The old covenant is ratified after the resurrection.  We see that Jesus says this:

“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,  “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; ³ therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.” 

 Matthew 23:1-3

We see Christ is speaking about a seat in this section of scripture.  We see that Christ, who is God recognizes even recognizes that the pharisees have the power and the high priest has supreme power.  We see that although he speaks of the corruption he brushes that aside and urges them to be obedient but not to carry out their commands the same way but come to it with a different spirit.  The as signifies that they shouldn’t do exactly as.  Jesus tells his followers to listen to the high priests and the law.

We also see in the New Testament before Jesus’ death and resurrection the power of the high priest as a prefigurement to the pope as does the old covenant conceal the new and vise versa.

⁴⁷ Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. “What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. ⁴⁸ If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”

⁴⁹ Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! ⁵⁰ You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

⁵¹ He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation,

John 11:47-51

The same high priest Caiaphas still has the authority.  We see an authoritative priesthood, a collection of priests that share in that and that are an extension of his ministerial arm, and finally a singular authority in the high priest.  In the New Testament we see Jesus establishing a college of bishops in Matthew 18:15-18 establishing that authority which he gave them to bind and to loose.  We see that just as in the Old Testament he chooses one among them to rule or to preside over the college of bishops the 12 apostles.

Let us look at Luke 22 we see 2 things:

1. The college of bishops:

“²⁸ You are those who have stood by me in my trials; ²⁹ and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, ³⁰ so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

2. The primacy:

“Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, ³² but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Some translations of this passage have Jesus speaking to the apostles and then specifically mentioning Peter during or afterwards after asking who’s going to be the greatest and Jesus says who ever serves the most.  (interesting fact the pope is called the servants of the servants of God). Jesus literally says that Satan wants to destroy all of the 12 apostles (Humas plural in greek) and then singles Peter out and says “Behold I have prayed for you.” ( Su, singular in greek).  giving him the primacy.

Now let us look at the beginning of the new covenant after Jesus’ passion death and resurrection and let us go to the last chapter of John’s gospel to the 15th to 19th verse:

“¹⁵ When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” ¹⁶ A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” ¹⁷ He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. ¹⁸ Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.” ¹⁹ (He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) After this he said to him, “Follow me.”

 

here we can note a few things:

1. Peter is specifically singled out

This is self explanatory.

1. the call to feed his sheep

As mentioned before the many titles for the pope is the Servant of the Servants of God.  Knowing this being a Shepard is serving the servants of God, even being supreme Shepard on earth.  Who is part of Jesus’ flock?  the apostles.  Jesus singled Peter out and gave him authority and rule over the flock as mentioned briefly above.  Having authority does not mean lording over but to give life.  St. Peter does give life.  As Revelation states that the devil is defeated by the blood of the lamb and testimony, so to is the devil here defeated and his long downfall is being destroyed.  We see that a man who messed up is being instated as head over all.  This proves that the weak shame the strong and that where sin abounds grace abounds even more so.  His testimony does give life and definitely does edify.

1. the belt or the garment ware

This illusion a lot of scholars point out that Jesus was harkening back to the Old Testament section of scripture in Exodus 28 with the belt.

Some further analysis of Peter’s primacy in scripture is:

1. Peter announces that Judas’ office must be filled (Acts 1),
2. Peter preaches the first sermon (Acts 2),
3. Peter performs the first miracle (Acts 3),
4. Peter speaks in Solomon’s portico,
5. Peter speaks before the Council (Acts 4),
6. and it is Peter who Paul must see when he visits Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18).
7. Peter decides to confirm the first Samaritans (Acts 8)
8. and to baptize the first Gentiles (Acts 10).
9. He alone could have stood up and announced the final decision of the first council (Acts 15).
10. There are little hints of it everywhere. For example, St. Paul writes that Christ was raised on the third day “and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve…” (1 Cor. 15:3-5).

 

Let us look at what the fathers in faith have said:

Clement of Alexandria

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

“[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).

Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Ambrose of Milan

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

Pope Innocent I

“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Council of Ephesus

“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).

Pope Leo I

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery” (ibid., 10:2–3).

“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).

 

 

 

Today in Church History

Today in the Latin Catholic Church we celebrate the memorial of a very famous first century church father named St. Ignatious of Antioch. (50-107 AD)

St. Ignatius of Antioch was a convert from paganism to Christianity.  He succeeded St. Peter the apostle as bishop of Antioch, Syria. He served during the persecution of Domitian.  During the persecution of Trajan, he was ordered to be taken to Rome in chains to be devoured by the wild beasts.  During his months long voyage he wrote encouraging letters to the parishes and other diocese around him. During his voyage to death he did not want anyone to prevent his martyrdom. He was one of the first to use the term Catholic.  Legend says he was the infant Jesus took into his arms in Mark 9.  He was closest to St. John the last apostle to die.

The reason why he is so fundamental is because he shows how the early church was catholic by writing on the priesthood, bishopric, and Eucharist.

Bishopric. Priesthood, Diaconate

 

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)

“Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9)

“It is becoming, therefore, that ye also should be obedient to your bishop, and contradict him in nothing; for it is a fearful thing to contradict any such person. For no one does [by such conduct] deceive him that is visible, but does [in reality] seek to mock Him that is invisible, who, however, cannot be mocked by any one. And every such act has respect not to man, but to God.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 3)

“Some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 4)

“Wherefore it is fitting that ye also should run together in accordance with the will of the bishop who by God’s appointment rules over you. Which thing ye indeed of yourselves do, being instructed by the Spirit. For your justly-renowned presbytery, being worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Thus, being joined together in concord and harmonious love, of which Jesus Christ is the Captain and Guardian, do ye, man by man, become but one choir; so that, agreeing together in concord, and obtaining a perfect unity with God, ye may indeed be one in harmonious feeling with God the Father, and His beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Ephesians; Ch 4)

Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest — Letter to the Magnesians 2, 6:1

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8

 

 

Eucharist:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.—Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

 

 

 

The Assumption of Mary

Well October is the month of Mary and so it seems I’m writing a lot on the Marian doctrines.

The question I was asked by another anonymous person is about the assumption of Mary and how I could prove that the assumption did really happen.

In proving the assumption of Mary people often use Revelation 12 and with a response people immediately rise and say that the “woman” in Revelation 12 is not Mary but rather Israel or the church.  It is actually taught that scripture has a polyvalent nature, this means that scripture has many types of meanings in scripture.  There are absolutely numerous ways you can interpret Revelation 12.  A little background if you do ascribe to not a literal sense of revelations 12 is that often times Israel is listed as God’s bride (Song of Solomon, Jer 3:1)

“It is commonly said: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and marry another man, shall he return to her any more? shall not that woman be polluted, and defiled? but thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers: nevertheless return to me, saith the Lord, and I will receive thee.”

So, guess what? It is probable that you can interpret the meaning that Revelation 12 is Israel and Jesus was born out of Israel.

Let us go to the New Testament we can see that now the church is God’s bride and the church keeps on feeling the pangs of birth as she “begets more children”

The real interpretation:

Although one could say that the text does represent the people of the Old Testament or the new covenant church that does not diminish the fact that it is Mary we are speaking about when we do read Rev 12 through proper exegesis of the sacred scripture.

4 Proofs:

1. “The woman” in Rev. 12 “brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.” The child is Jesus. If one were to commence  on the most literal level, there is no doubt in fact the scriptures do state  that Mary is the one who “brought forth” Jesus.
2. We could in fact find a duplicity of meanings when it says the “flight of the woman” in verses 6 and 14 but the family literally fled into Egypt with assistance from God and his hosts. This could be found in Matthew 2:13-15

“ And after they were departed, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph, saying: Arise, and take the child and his mother, and fly into Egypt: and be there until I shall tell thee. For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him.¹⁴ Who arose, and took the child and his mother by night, and retired into Egypt: and he was there until the death of Herod:¹⁵ That it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Out of Egypt have I called my son.”

3. In the traditional sense of interpreting scripture we are to look at things in the Old Testament with a New Testament lense.  In the Old Testament we see that Mary is referred to as the woman (Gen 3:15, Jer 31:22)

“ I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” 

-Gen 3:15

“How long wilt thou be dissolute in deliciousness, O wandering daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A WOMAN SHALL COMPASS A MAN.”

Jer 31:22

Subsequently we can see that in the New Testament we can see that “the woman” is Mary in both St. John 2:4 and 19:26

“Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

– John 2:4 

“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!”

– John 19:26

Since St. John is the apostle who wrote both the gospel according to St. John and Revelation St. John meant the familiar term of woman as the woman or lady of the apocalypse.
4. Exegetically it fits that there are four literal persons in this text of scripture bother Mary, the devil, Jesus and the Archangel Micheal.  No one denies that it is Mary, it fits the context.

 

Is Mary really in heaven (bodily)?

Yes! With confidence we can say yes.  In revelations 12 she is depicted with words to have the stars under her feet. In the other parts of the scriptures especially in Revelation we can see that it says in 9:6 the saints in heaven are the saints that were slain.  Souls have no body, those two things are divorced. We also see in scripture that in heaven are  “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb. 12:23).  In Revelation 12 we can see that Mary is a anthropomorphized being. Souls are non anthropomorphized.  Mary has been anthropomorphized.

The birth pangs start from very early on going all the way back to the beginning of her vocation to be the mother of the king of kings, the anointed one other wise known as the messiah.  She knew that her son was to be the suffering servant from Isa 53 and Psalm 22.

The labor pains can trace it’s start at the annunciation and would continue for his entire life. She suffered with her son at the cross as shown forth and told by Luke 2:34-35

“³⁴ And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted;³⁵ And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.”

This was fulfilled in John 19.  Mary’s pains of seeing her son, her beloved son caused more heart than ever could be described or caused with physical pain.  Mary clearly chose love.  She was present for our lord and was there for our lord and is continually present for our lord for all eternity.

IF you say “The assumption of Mary is not in the Bible.”  My question is “Where in the Bible does it say that everything has to be in the Bible?” I would then show them my very first blog post “Being a Weekend Warrior”.  A second thing I would show them is Peter and Paul’s journey to Rome is not in record and the two were martyred there while the Bible was still being written.  It would be false to deny the Assumption because it is not LITERALLY OR EXPLICITLY shown in scripture.

The numerous reasons why it is reasonable that the lord would assume the mother of our lord’s body into heaven is

1. By the incarnation Jesus was begotten under the law (Gal 4:4)

“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,”

The command to honor thy mother and father does not show pure courtesy but bestowal of glory.  Jesus divinely does honor Mary the best way. Just a question, if you had the ability to prevent your mother’s decay wouldn’t you?

How does God call people to treat holy things in the Old Testament?  He calls the people to treat it with reverence. The holiest item was the Ark of the Covenant, it contained the bread from heaven (prefigurement of Christ and the Eucharist), staff of Aaron, and tablets of the law (prefigurement of Christ and what he is supposed to fulfill) Only priests can touch it and if any one else touched it they would be smitten on the spot as 2 Sam 6:6-7 states:

“And when they came to the floor of Nachon, Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it: because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside.⁷And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and he struck him for his rashness: and he died there before the ark of God.”

The glory of God “hovered” over it and Psalm 132:8 states:

“”Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place; thou and the ark which thou hast sanctified.”

Now we have covered the Old Testament let us move forward to show how the New fulfills the Old Testament.  In Revelation according to St. John we see:

“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple”

-Rev. 11:19

“a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; . . . she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron”

-Rev. 12:1,5

The random break in between the chapters were done after the Bible was written allows it to be easily overlooked to how John mentions Mary as synonymous as the Ark of the Covenant.

Catholicism Delivers the Truth on Your Mom

If you are reading the title I hope it shocked you a bit. It was supposed to grab your attention, but don’t worry I will not under any circumstances insult your mother that being biological or spiritual nor does the Catholic church which I toil to defend think or wish ill on your mother who is biological.

Weather you like it or not, Mary the ever virgin is your mother.  If you are a Christian you are in Christ’s body mystically and also Christ is your elder brother via adoption therefor Christ’s mother is your mother.

When I was blogging about sola scriptura and how much of a heresy it is a fundamentalist came on the page and quite aggressively (and falsely too) that Mary did not die a virgin.  Lets see if this is really true

Claim:

Mary did not die a virgin 

Many protestants like to point out that the bible does say James brother of Jesus.  Is this true? It isn’t.

The term or word brother in the greek is adelphos, it has a much broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, it as well could mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother.

After finding scriptures with that use of adelphos in the ancient Greek I see Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not biological brothers but uncle and nephew:

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8, NIV; see also 14:12).

Because the bible does have a  broad meaning for the word brother meaning of brother is not literal we see this most prevalent in the New Testament especially here:“[Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!  That is impossible!

Brother From another Mother 

These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).

James and Joseph who are labeled as Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are the children of Mary—No, not that Mary the other Mary

After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes:

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

The “James” that Paul was speaking was both a “brother of the Lord” and an “apostle.” There are only two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is  a “son of Zebedee.” He is not the “James” referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he was martyred very early on. Even if it was him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph.

Paul is referring to the second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16. This James has a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers. Easy enough. Some will argue, however, that this “James” was not an apostle or that he was not one of the original 12. This is a very good possibility—others in the New Testament, such as Barnabas in Acts 14, are referred to as “apostles” in a looser sense—the argument from Scripture is weak so week even my grandmother is stronger than that argument.  When Paul wrote about going “up to Jerusalem” to see Peter, he was writing about an event that occurred many years earlier, shortly after he had converted. He was basically going up to the apostles to receive approval lest he “should be running or had run in vain.” It would be more likely he would have here been speaking about “apostles” (proper), or “the twelve.”

Early Church Quotes:

Athanasius of Alexandria

“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin [Four Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 (c. A.D. 360)].

St. Jerome

“You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more that Joseph himself, on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born [Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 21 (A.D. 383)].

Pope St. Leo I

“The origin is different but the nature alike: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remained [Sermons 22:2 (A.D. 450)].

 

The church today:

“The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin” (CCC 499)

 

Part 2

Mary Did Not Die 

Common objections to this:

1. John 3:13:

No one has ascended up to heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.

If “no man” has ascended into heaven, wouldn’t that include the Blessed Virgin Mary?

2. I Cor. 15:22-23:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

If no one except Christ will be resurrected bodily before the Second Coming of Christ, would that not eliminate the possibility of Mary having been bodily assumed into heaven?

Our answer:

1. John 3:13:

John 3:13 does not eliminate the possibility of the Assumption of Mary for four reasons.

1. St. John was quoting Jesus when he wrote, “No one has ascended into heaven, but . . . the Son of man.” Jesus was merely saying that everyone before him had ever assumed into heaven, this was ancient history by the time Mary got assumed.
2. Jesus cannot be saying that no one else will ever be taken to heaven.
3. If one interprets John 3:13 as speaking about Christ uniquely ascending to heaven, that would be acceptable. We would then have to ask the question: what is it about Jesus’ ascension that is unique? Well, the fact that he ascended is unique. Mary did not ascend to heaven. She was assumed. There is a big difference.

The two differences:

1. Jesus ascended by his own divine power as he prophesied he would in John 2:19-21: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up . . . he spoke of the temple of his body.”

2. Mary was powerless to raise herself to heaven; she had to be assumed. The same    could be said of all Christians. Jesus raised himself from the dead. Christians will be entirely passive when it comes to their collective “resurrection.”

4. Let us look at this in context.  St. John is showing how Christ is God in John 3:13. Historically, we know St. John was writing against his archenemy someone that he hated more than anything the heretic Cerinthus, who denied and totally rejected the divinity of Christ. St. John quotes these words from Jesus to demonstrate that the Savior “descended” from heaven and was both in heaven and on Earth as the “only begotten Son” (cf. 3:16) sharing his Father’s nature (cf. 5:17-18). Thus, he was truly God. St. John also emphasizes that even while “the Son of Man” walked the Earth with his disciples in Galilee, he possessed the beatific vision in his human nature. In that sense, his human nature (Son of Man) had already “ascended” into heaven inasmuch as it possessed the beatific vision, which is at the core of what heaven is. That is John’s theme in the text, not whether someone years after Christ could be assumed into heaven or not.

2. 1 Cor 15:22-23

 

1. There are exceptions to norms in scripture. Let us take Matt. 3:5-6: “Then went out to [St. John the Baptist] Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, and they were baptized by him.” We know that “all” here does not mean “all” in a strict sense because we know, at least, Herod, Herodias, and her daughter, were exceptions to this verse (See Matt. 14:1-11). They conspired to put St. John to death. Not the best candidates for baptism! The bottom line: There are exceptions to Matt. 3:5-6. St. John the Baptist did not baptize everyone in “Jerusalem, Judea and the region around Jordan.” So Mary could be (and is, as we will see below) an exception to I Cor. 15:22-23.
2. There are exceptions to other general norms specifically laid out as true for “all” in Scripture. Hebrews 9:27 declares, “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment.” The exception is to this norm many places in Scripture by way of resurrections from the dead. Not only do we have Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, St. Peter and St. Paul raising the dead in Scripture, but after Jesus’ Resurrection, “the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and [came] out of the tombs” (Matt. 27:52-53). These folks obviously did not “die once.” They died at least twice!
3. We have examples of other “assumptions” in Scripture. Both Enoch (cf. Gen. 5:24) and Elijah were taken up “into heaven” (II Kings 2:11) in a manner quite out of the ordinary. And so are the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11:3-13. Let me ask you this question, why couldn’t God do this with Mary?
4. We know that Mary is an exception to the “norm” of I Cor. 15:22-23 because she is depicted as having been assumed into heaven in Rev. 12. “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun . . . she was with child . . . and . . . brought forth a male child [Jesus], one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (12:1-5). Who was the woman who gave birth to Jesus? Mary! And there she is in heaven!

We see this later in scripture:

Fundamentalists claim to take scripture literally.  Let us go to Revelation 12.

1. “The woman” -“brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.” This child is obviously Jesus. If we begin on the literal level, there is no doubt that Mary is the one who “brought forth” Jesus.
2. Though we could discover many spiritual levels of meaning for the flight of “the woman” in 12:6, 14, Mary and the Holy Family literally fled into Egypt in Matt. 2:13-15 with divine assistance.
3. Mary is referred to prophetically as “woman” in Gen. 3:15, Jer. 31:22, and by Jesus as the same in John 2:4 and 19:26. Especially considering the same apostle, John, wrote the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation, it is no stretch to say St. John would have had Mary in mind when he used the familiar term “the woman” as the descriptor of the Lady of the Apocalypse.
4. There are four main characters in the chapter: “the woman,” the devil, Jesus, and the Archangel Michael. No one denies that the other three mentioned are real persons. It fits the context exegetically to interpret “the woman” as a person (Mary) as well.

What the fundamentalist might say:

In Revelations 12 the woman has birth pangs.

What the truth states:

1. It doesn’t matter the interpretation you choose —Israel, the Church, Mary, or all of the above—all interpretations agree: the labor pains of Rev. 12:2 are not literal pains from a child passing through the birth canal.
2. From the very beginning of Mary’s calling to be the Mother of the Messiah, she would have most likely known her Son was called to be the “suffering servant” of Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and Wisdom 2.  These were all prophecies

Mary’s “labor pains” began at the Annunciation and would continue from the cradle to the cross, where she suffered with her Son as prophesied in Luke 2:34-35 and as painfully fulfilled in John 19. Mary’s deep love for and knowledge of her divine Son brought with it pains far deeper than any physical hurt could ever cause. A body can go numb and cease to feel pain. But you can’t deaden a heart that loves, as long as that heart continues to love. Mary clearly chose to love. She was uniquely present for our Lord, from the Incarnation of Luke 1:37-38, to the birthing of his ministry in John 2, to the cross in John 19, and into eternity in Revelation 12.

I mean a mother feels the same pain.  Imagine having your baby boy being hunted down from birth then being poor not being able to provide for him, see him go starving while people are attacking you for being called a whore (which protestants do), loosing your child at his age which was 12, seeing him do all of the stuff he did, GET WHIPPED AND NAILED TO A CROSS.  I don’t care if you are a horrible mother who hates your son, you’d feel the same too.

 

Catholicism, The Truth Pt. 3

Just a reminder, I recently posed up a post that went against Sola Scriptura and why it is a heresy. Right after I got done publishing it  someone came on my blog that is dedicated towards defending the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic church set on earth and made very false assertions that were not backed up.

By the way, One insight that i think is cool is that Catholic means universal, over many parishes that I have visited I’ve seen one thing that proves as a testimony to that universal experience.  That one thing is that you see people of all different races, backgrounds, colors, ages and walks of life coming together to hear the word of God and be administered the sacraments to as well as worship with each other.  I remember my protestant days and it was really hard to find that.  You went to a traditional protestant church you see mostly middle aged to elderly, you went to a hip church you saw mostly young people.  There was more than one element that was really missing.  Those elements were the true doctrine set fourth by the apostles, reverence, 2000 year old traditions being portrayed differently with different cultures, and the sacraments which are a remedy for sin.

sorry for my mini rants

Anyway, among one of the comments made is:

Roman Catholicism is a Johnny come lately that was begun by satan & Constantine in the 4th Century.

I really do know this is false for many reasons.  This argument is rubbish.  This is rubbish because we can prove this through church history and scripture.

Constantine did not develop catholicism people were having catholic masses with the same unaltered liturgy that is being used today long before in the privacy of their own homes and even in catacombs.  Here is what the apostle Paul says in the earliest account of the mass.

“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenantin my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.  For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together. Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.”

-1 Corinthians 11:27-33

Let us look at the culture of “the worship service” more properly called the mass closer from sacred scripture.  We can say this:

1. The apostle Paul received this ritual from the lord
2. the reenactment in the mass was done and is aught to be done thus confirming the doctrine of Persona Christi
3. the mystery of faith as done in the Latin Rite mass is done
4. he warns of the practice of going to communion with out a clean conscious which is warned by the catechism:

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. (CIC 916)

5. The need for corporal confession as well before taking it:

“Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.”

-James 5:16

The reason why I bring you to this verse is because it shows you the biblical support for the  confiteor which is said before the reading of the word during the penitential rite.

     6. The need of confessing that you are unworthy for the remission of sins before the    body and blood is administered.

     7. Finally we see the practice of eating before going to the mass so one would not over indulge on the body of christ and the blood of christ thus resulting in the loss of reverence would be prevented.

    8. Finally that the sending out and benediction is given as is given in most pauline works

    9.  One last observation i forgot to bring up is that the people had to believe the same thing the apostles did so a confession of faith had to be done

Let us look at early church father quotations:

1. “On the Lord’s own day assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure . . . your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have a saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer Me a pure sacrifice’ (Greek: thysia) . . . for I am a mighty king says the Lord and My name spreads terror among the nations'” (A.D. 98).

-St. Ignatius of Antioch

2. “He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks and said, ‘This is My Body.’ And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His Blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant, which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers to God throughout the world . . . concerning which Malachy, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: ‘From the rising of the sun to the going down, My name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name and a pure sacrifice . . . ‘ indicating in the plainest manner that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and at that a pure one” (Against Heresies 4,17,5; A.D. 170).

St. Irenaeus of Lyons

“The day we call day of the sun a meeting takes place in one location for all who live in the city or in the countryside. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read. When the reader has ceased, the presider speaks to incite and urge everyone to imitate these beautiful things. Then we get up and pray for ourselves … and for all others wherever they are, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments to attain eternal salvation. … Then, bread and a glass with wine mixed with water is taken to the presider. The presider takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and gives extensive thanks because they have been judged worthy of these gifts. … When the presider has given thanks and the people have responded ‘Amen,’ those who are called deacons distribute that bread and wine that has been ‘eucharisticized’ to all who are present. No one is permitted to participate in the Eucharist, unless they believe the things we teach and have been purified in that bath that gives the remission of sins and regeneration, and lives as Christ taught us. Because we do not take these foods as if they were a common bread or ordinary drink, but just as Christ, our Savior, took on flesh and blood and became the cause of our salvation, in the same way we have learned that the food on which was recited the thanksgiving, which contains the words of Jesus and that feed and transform our blood and flesh, is precisely the flesh and blood of that Jesus who became incarnate.”

–  St. Justin Martyr (early first century)

The evidence that the way the mass was celebrated in the first century to now in the Roman Catholic church is very close is overwhelmingly in my favor.

We definitely do see that the way Christians in the fist century worshiped were very similar to how catholics worship and partake in the mass and the theology is drawn out.

In sacred scripture we do see that Authority over everyone else of the apostles was given to St. Peter in Matthew 16:18-20

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.”

1. Peter is given authority by Christ over the flock (which i just answered another objection the man had to peter not being a pope)
2. he is given keys to the kingdom
3. Peter is the rock the church was built upon (Eph 2:20)
4. Peter is given authority in heaven to act on the behalf of christ

The third pope was from Rome and before that the first church had no centralized hub but Clement the third pope in the first century moved it permanently into pagan Rome.

This teaching was coined by an anti christian authors such as Franz Cumont who were communists who sought out opportunities to attack christianity at its core.

We must remember that Constantine did not actually become a Christian until he was an old man on his death bed. That was when he was baptised and professed that Jesus is Lord. During his life he did not surrender to Christ. He simply changed the law so that it was no longer illegal to be Christian. This was quite prudent of him given that Christianity was steadily growing and might have turned into an ugly rebellion against him.

The problem with this is that there was already a church before that time period and they did call them catholics.

Here is some more proof:

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies, 3:3:1).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies, 3:3:2). “

“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of people] also be;  even as, wherever Jesus Christ is there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH

-Ignatious of Antioch AD 110

The church in the first century taught the same thing, practiced the same things, and even had the same liturgy if you even look at scripture and church history.

All Constantine did was make christianity acceptable.

We see the claim that was made to be false.

Catholicism, The Truth Pt. 2

As mentioned previously there was a rather vehement anti-catholic who trolled my page and made a lot of false assertions. As I promised I would refute them one by one in each separate blog post because one would be to long.

The second assertion(s) is:

The reason why I lumped these two together rather than doing one after another is because they do go hand in hand.

Apostolic succession is an outright LIE straight out of hell

First we have to deal with definitions.  The reason why I stress so much definitions is because that is the basis of the idea.  The definition of apostolic succession is the doctrine of apostolic succession states that Christ gave the full sacramental authority of the Church to the Twelve Apostles through the sacrament of Holy Orders. According to a site that does have the nihil obstat and the imprimatur Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations.

Let us look to scripture first (which I never ever said was not needed).   After skimming through my New Testament, which we have the apostles and the catholic church to thank for I see a pivotal and good verse to start with is 2 Timmothy 2:2

“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.”

• We see that Paul who did disciple Timmothy did teach his doctrine to Timmothy
• We later see that the people are reliable and qualified
• we then do see that there are atlas three generations present

1. Paul’s peers aka his generation
2. Timmothy’s own generation
3. the generation Timmothy will teach

I also see that in 1 Corinthians 11:2

“I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.”

and 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

Here are some observations:

1. The apostles had this tradition or doctrine that was passed down to the next generation of catholics
2. They were taught to hold firm to the teachings written and oral passed on

With Acts 1:21-26

 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us,beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show uswhich of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

where you’ll observe the apostles, immediately and swiftly after Jesus’ Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas’s suicide.

If you have proper skills to draw a proper inference you can see these that they had to have known that they were going to be leading a church.

In this passage you also see that they had performed a primitive version of holy hours that was more fully developed in line with the form of worship which resembles very closely had it not been for the language being used but then furnished before the time of post apostolic church fathers.

They cast lots- they gambled.  The same practiced is still used today in the Vatican when picking a Pope.

1 Timothy 1:6-7

“ Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.”

Lets exegete these passages and pull out simple things they say

1. some have departed from the original fold and the original teachings of the apostles
2. they are speaking meaninglessly and their doctrine is false
3. these people who have departed from them do not know what they are teaching

1 Timmothy 4:14

“Do not be negligent of the gift in you, which was given to you through prophecy, with thelaying on of the hands of the elder hood.”

1. Paul tells Timmothy his authority was given to him by the laying of hands by the apostles

2. Bishop hood has been given to him in laying of hands by Paul.

Let us look at another verse I found 1 Timmothy 5:22

1 Timothy 5:22

” Do not be too quick to lay hands on anyone, and never make yourself an accomplice in anybody else’s sin; keep yourself pure.”

We can see these things from the text on of them is that Paul advises and urges Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.

Lets look at what church fathers have said to carry it out to today.

Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

 

Hegesippus

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

 

Irenaeus

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). 

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2). 

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4). 

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1). 

“[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2). 

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).

 

Tertullian

“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]). 

“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21). 

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (ibid., 32). 

“But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory” (ibid.). 

“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).

 

Cyprian of Carthage

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

 

Jerome

“Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians” (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).

 

Augustine

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

The line of Popes and clergy has been so compact and tight, from Peter to Pope Francis.  This line was never broken.  All of the cardinals and bishops knew each other.

Using scripture and church history we can see that this assertion that was made was false.

Christ – The Word of God made Flesh

 

Christ => Founds the Church on the 12 Apostles

 

From which comes the continuation of the same :

 

Doctrine = i.e. the Faith

 

Sacraments = i.e. Holy Order in regards to apostolic succession

 

Mission = the Legitimate succession which today more explicitly implies union with the patron office of the Pope (Matt 16:18).

 

No one today can claim apostolic succession 

As mentioned earlier one can claim apostolic succession via the sacrament of holy orders the laying of hands and ordination.

 

 

Catholicism, The Truth Pt. 1

If you are following my blog you must have seen earlier that a rather hostile protestant has made a lot of accusations and assertions. I will go through these assertions and prove them wrong one by one.   I’ll give this guy the benefit of the doubt and probably say he isn’t ignorant,  my father did say not to argue with fools but also my spiritual director did say always give people the benefit of the doubt.  There is a lot to deal with, the burden of proof is on them not on me.   I really do not know where he got these assertions from.  I will be answering these all in separate blog posts.

1. You need to realize that the Catholic so-called church is the Whore of Babylon Rev 17 KJV.

1.1 Hills

People say the  Whore “is a city built on seven hills,” most people identify this as the seven hills of ancient Rome. The whole entirety of this so called “argument” finds its origins in Revelation 17:9, which this piece of sacred scripture says  that the woman sits on seven mountains.

The Ancient Greek in this section is horos. Out of the whole entire sixty-five times this word is mentioned in the New Testament three are only rendered or shown “hill” by the KJV the man so aggressively holds on to, the other are translated into as “mountain” or even so “mount”.  Many bibles have the same numbers.  Mountains can mean anything, mountains mean anything such whole kingdoms.   (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8–21). The  seven mountains even may be seven kingdoms she rules over, or seven kingdoms with which she has something in common.

The number might even symbolic, the number seven does often represent completeness. It could mean that it could represent that the harlot reigns over all of the kingdoms.

If we accept that the Greek word horos  should be translated literally as “hill” in this passage, that many cities are built on seven hills, it still does not narrow us down to Rome.

Let us say it is Rome, which Rome are we talking about—pagan Rome or Christian Rome?

Let us now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican city since they are two separate entities.  The Vatican’s terrain is built on one hill, but it feels flat if you walk on it.  This claim is less plausible. Vatican hill is not part of the seven hills if you observe a map one of the seven where ancient Rome was built are are on the east side of the Tiber there is a huge distinction.  Vatican Hill is on the west.  They are two separate entities.

2.2

Babylon

He submits to the fact that the whore will be an exact city “known as Babylon.” This is statement he pulls is based on the verse  Revelation 17:5, which orates that her name is “Babylon the Great.”

“Babylon the great” (in the Greek) Babulon a megala is only mentioned five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light which is knowledge is shed on its meaning when one arrives to the fact that Babylon is “the great city” seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to “the great city.” That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses “will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.”

“The great city” is symbolically, not literally named or called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called “Sodom” in the Old Testament (cf. Is. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1–3, 46–56). We also know for one reason Jerusalem is the “the great city” of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was “where [the] Lord was crucified.”

Revelation time and time again says that was on one “great city” (the great city or great one) very painstakingly obviously it is suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts—Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon.

The conclusion one may pull is that the great may be Jerusalem, not Rome after the exhaustive survey of scripture I have done.  Many protestant commentaries have come to this conclusion such as Schriener. If you would like to even go outside of scriptures and pull from church fathers they often appealed to the thought that  Rome is “Babylon,” but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians.

1.3 Fornication

He would also conclude that “The woman is called a ‘whore’ (verse 1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome.”

Anyone in their right mind would admit to the fact that the prophets often referred to Jerusalem as a spiritual whore, suggesting that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Let us say it is Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the bill, because you do see historically that there is a cult of emperor worship that it committed fornication of the spirit with the earthly kings (those it conquered)

For your sake which I am being really generous here let us identify the Whore as Vatican City, your school of thought interprets the fornication as alleged “unholy alliances” forged between Vatican City and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with other nations are “unholy.”

He logically failed because he confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome, and he neglects the fact and belligerently runs away and forgets historically that pagan Rome had “unholy alliances” with the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor worship).

1.4 Clothed in Purple and Red

The fundamentalist such as the one who vehemently attacked the bride of christ would submit to say “She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy.” He then probably being very keen would then cite the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.

Here are the symbols of these colors which he would blatantly ignore—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, the latter is assumed through his false literal interpretation. His school of thought definitely  understands well  that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but He wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.

Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.

The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for the guy who vehemently attacked me for these reasons: (a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally; (b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation (“the righteous acts of the saints;” 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning; and (c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26).

His school of thought blatantly  ignores and doesn’t even look at the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. This is what the colors represent, purple represents repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.

It is appropriate and wrong for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.

His school of thought abandons to remind his readers that he has led astray that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that thepriests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).

 

1.5: Possesses Great Wealth

One such as the man that I am dealing with would state, “[The Whore’s] incredible wealth next caught John’s eye. She was ‘decked with gold and precious stones and pearls . . . ’ [Rev. 17:4].” One of the problems is that, regardless of what it had in the past, the modern Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. It’s budget is only the size of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Wealth therefor, was more associated with pagan Rome then apostate Jerusalem, two economic epicenters.

 

1.6 Golden chalice

His fundamentalist thought would say  “has ‘a golden cup [chalice] in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.’” This is another reference to Revelation 17:4. Then he  would then look for a picture on google images of the catholic mass and state so typically that the “Church is known for its many thousands of gold chalices around the world.”

If he were to suggest it was the chalice used in mass he would input the word so erroneously  “chalice” The greek word for this is potarion, which comes up 33 times and is translated into “cup”

The chalice is is used in the celebration of the Mass or the communion a practice COMMANDED by Christ. (Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25);   To further refute this most chalices are made of something other than gold they are made out of brass, silver, glass, even earthenware.  He ignores that these instruments have been in use in the true religion as far as ancient Israel, which was a command of God (Ex. 25:38–40, 37:23–24; Num. 31:50–51; 2 Chr. 24:14); One in his school of though again  would use a literal interpretation, according to which the Whore’s cup is not a single symbol applying to the city of Rome, but a collection of many literal cups used in cities throughout the world. But Revelation tells us that it’s the cup of God’s wrath that is given to the Whore (Rev. 14:10; cf. Rev. 18:6). This has nothing to do with Eucharistic chalices.

 

1.7: Mother of Harlots

Now for Hunt’s most hilarious argument: “John’s attention is next drawn to the inscription on the woman’s forehead: ‘THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH’ (verse 5) Very vehemently he along with those who are ignorantly following this rhetoric would then result that, the Roman Catholic Church fits that description as precisely as she fits the others. Much of the cause is due to the unbiblical doctrine of priestly celibacy,” which has “made sinners of the clergy and harlots out of those with whom they secretly cohabit.”

Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not doctrine—One only found in the Latin Rite of the Church—This discipline can scarcely be unbiblical, “The great apostle Paul was a celibate and recommended that life to others who wanted to devote themselves fully to serving Christ.”

I can assume he would be gripping for the straws as he is falling off of the proverbial cliff that he should interpret the harlotry of the Whore’s daughters as the same as their mother’s, which is why she is called their mother in the first place. This would make it spiritual or political fornication or the persecution of Christian martyrs (cf. 17:2, 6, 18:6). Lets make this literal as earthly prostitutes committing literal, earthly fornication.

The problem is is that he is asphyxiated with the King James Version there is another point that shows the daughters’ whorings with that of their mother, the same word porna is used for the mother and daughters. Modern translations show it consistently. John sees the “great harlot” (17:1, 15, 16, 19:2) who is “the mother of harlots” (17:5). The harlotries of the daughters must be the same as the mother’s, the fundamentalist would then say it is not literal sex.

 

1.8: The Blood of Saints

One from the fundamentalist anti-catholic camp would say  “John next notices that the woman is drunk—not with alcohol but with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus . . . [cf. verse 6].” They would then hold to saying this is the inquisition and forced conversion of the holocaust!

The notion that there were false conversion is a false one, the church condemns it, in the third century when it even had no power and was under persecuting Rome has formally condemned them on repeated occasions, as in theCatechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 160, 1738, 1782, 2106–7).

Pagan Rome and apostate Jerusalem do fit the bill of a city drunk with the blood of saints and the martyrs of Jesus. And since they were notoriously famous for the countless persecutions of Christians, the original audience would have automatically thought of one of these two as the city that persecutes Christians, not an undreamed-of Christian Rome that was centuries in the future.

 

1.9: Reigns over Kings

Lastly he would argue  “Finally, the angel reveals that the woman ‘is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth’ (verse 18). Is there such a city? Yes, and again only one: Vatican City.”

This is hilariously a joke to scorn at. Vatican City has no power over other nations; it does not reign over them. As a matter of fact in the past two centuries even know the Vatican has been threatened by by fierce Italian nationalism and even at one point in the 1970’s and during the years of anon di piomba it was forced under ground.

One would make these appeals first to power the popes once had over Christian political rulers (neglecting the fact that this was always a limited authority, by the popes’ own admission), but at that time there was no Vatican City. The Vatican only became a separate city in 1929, when the Holy See and Italy signed the Lateran Treaty.

He would then understand this to be Vatican City, because the modern city of Rome is only a very minor political force. If the reign is a literal, political one, then pagan Rome fulfills the requirement far better than Christian Rome ever did.

Here are more arguments:

A Vision in the Wilderness

John introduces the Whore in Revelation 17, he says: “Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who is seated upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and with the wine of whose fornication the dwellers on earth have become drunk.’ And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of b.asphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations.’ And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her I marveled greatly” (Rev. 17:1–6).

This passage tells us several things about the Whore: (1) She is an international power, since she “sits on many waters,” representing different peoples (17:15), and she has committed fornication with “the kings of the earth,” and she has inflamed “the dwellers on earth” with her fornication. (2) She is connected with the seven-headed Beast from Revelation 13:1–10. That Beast was a major pagan empire, since its symbolism combined animal elements from four other major pagan empires (compare Rev. 13:1–2 with Dan. 7:1–8). (3) The Woman is connected with royalty, since she is dressed in the royal color purple. (4) The Woman is rich, for she is “bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup.” (5) She has committed some kind of fornication, which in Scripture is often a symbol of false religion—lack of fidelity to the God who created heaven and earth. (6) She is symbolically known as Babylon. (7) She is a central cause of “abominations” in the land, abominations being a reference to practices, especially religious practices, that are offensive to God. And (8) she persecutes Christians “the saints and . . . martyrs of Jesus.”

While the rest of her description could refer to a number of things, the symbolic designation “Babylon” narrows it down to two: pagan Rome and apostate Jerusalem. It is well known that the early Church Fathers referred to pagan Rome as “Babylon”; however, there are also indications in Revelation that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Historically, a number of commentators, both Protestant and Catholic, have adopted this interpretation.

 

The Seven Heads

In Revelation, the angel begins by explaining to John the woman’s symbolism: “This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while” (Rev. 17:9–10).

Fundamentalists could argue quite foolishly that these seven mountains must be the seven hills of ancient Rome. However the Greek word here, horos, is almost always translated “mountain” in Scripture. Mountains are often times symbols of kingdoms in Scripture (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Obad. 8–21; Amos 4:1, 6:1), it might be why the seven heads also symbolize seven kings. The mountains could stand for a series of seven kings, five of whom have already fallen.

This passage gives us a very imperative key rule of Bible interpretation which is often denied by Fundamentalists: A symbol does not have to refer to one and only one thing. Here Scripture itself tells us that the heads refer both to seven mountains and seven kings, meaning the symbol has multiple fulfillments. Thus there is not a one-to-one correspondence in the Bible between symbols and their referents.

moreover the mountains could be referencing to pagan Rome, or the Whore could still be a reference to apostate Jerusalem. In this case, her sitting on the Beast does not and would not indicate a geographical location but rather an alliance between the two powers. The Whore (Jerusalem) would be allied with the Beast (Rome) in persecuting “the saints and . . . martyrs of Jesus.” (Note that the Whore also sits on many waters, which we are told are many peoples, [cf. 17:15]. The context makes it clear that here her “sitting” on something does not refer to a geographical location.)

This passage gives us one reason why the Catholic Church cannot be the Whore. We are told that the heads “are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come.” If five of these kings had fallen in John’s day and one of them was still in existence, then the Whore must have existed in John’s day. Yet Christian Rome and Vatican City did not. Quite frankly, pagan Rome did have a line of emperors, and the majority of commentators see this as the line of kings to which 17:10 refers. Five of these emperors are referred to as having already fallen, son as still reigning in John’s time, and another yet to come. Since Jerusalem had no such line of kings in the first century, this gives us evidence that the Beast (though not the Whore) is Rome.

 

The Ten Horns

The angel also interprets for John the meaning of the Beast’s ten horns: “And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. These are of one mind and give over their power and authority to the beast; they will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful” (17:12–14).

The Beast is allied with ten lower rulers  with their own territories. Some Fundamentalists are hell bent on making this apply to modern times and the Catholic Church have argued that the horns refer to the European Community (EC) and a revived Roman empire with the Catholic Church at its head. The problem is that there are ten kings, but there are now manymore than ten nations in the EC.

What we are told about the horns does fit one of the other candidates we have for the Whore—apostate Jerusalem. The angel tells John: “And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the harlot; they will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and giving over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled” (17:16–17).

If the Whore is Jerusalem and the Beast is Rome (with the ten horns as vassal states), then the prophecy makes perfect sense. The alliance between the two in persecuting Christians broke down in A.D. 66–70, when Rome and its allied forces conquered Israel and then destroyed, sacked, and burned Jerusalem, just as Jesus prophesied (Luke 21:5–24).

 

The Whore’s Authority

Finally the angel tells John: “And the woman that you saw is the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth” (17:18). This again points to pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem. In the case of the former, the dominion would be political; in the case of the latter, it could be a number of things. It could be spiritual dominion in that Jerusalem held the religion of the true God. It could be a reference to the manipulation by certain Jews and Jewish leaders of gentiles into persecuting Christians.

It could be political, since Jerusalem was the center of political power in Canaan and, under the authority of the Romans, it ruled a considerable amount of territory and less powerful peoples. On this thesis “the kings of the earth” would be “the kings of the land” (the Greek phrase can be translated either way). Such local rulers of the land of Canaan would naturally resent Jerusalem and wish to cooperate with the Romans in its destruction—just as history records they did. Local non-Jewish peoples were used by the Romans in the capture of Jerusalem.

 

The hub of world commerce

Continuing in chapter 18, John sees the destruction of the Whore, and a number of facts are revealed which also show that she cannot be the Catholic Church. For one, she is depicted as a major center of international trade and commerce. When it is destroyed in chapter 18, we read that “the merchants of the earth [or land] weep and mourn for her, since no one buys their cargo any more” (18:11) and “all shipmasters and seafaring men, sailors and all whose trade is on the sea . . . wept and mourned, crying out, ‘Alas, alas, for the great city, where all who had ships at sea grew rich by her wealth!’” (18:17–19).

Pagan Rome was indeed the hub of world commerce in its day, supported by its maritime trading empire around the Mediterranean, but Christian Rome is not the hub of world commerce. After the Reformation, the economic center of power was located in Germany, Holland, England, and more recently, in the United States and Japan.

 

Persecuting apostles and prophets

When the Whore falls we read, “‘Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you’. . . . In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth” (18:20, 24). This shows that the Whore persecuted not just Christians, but apostles and prophets. Apostles existed only in the first century, since one of the requirements for being an apostle was seeing the risen Christ (1 Cor. 9:1). Prophets existed as a group only in the Old Testament and in the first century (Acts 11:27–28, 13:1, 15:32, 21:10).

Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century. This totally demolishes the claim that Christian Rome or Vatican City is the Whore. Rome was not a Christian city at that time, and Vatican City did not even exist, so neither of them could be the Whore. Furthermore, Fundamentalists continually (though wrongly) claim that Catholicism itself did not exist in the first century, meaning that based on their very own argument Catholicism could not be the Whore!

Fundamentalists are fond of conjecturing that in the last days there will be a “revived Roman empire,” such as the one that persecuted Christians in the first century. Yet they never draw the inference that this empire would be headed by a revived pagan Rome, with the bishop of Rome leading the Christian underground, just as he did in the first century.

Still, Revelation 18:20 and 18:24 prove that the Whore had to be a creature of the first century, which, in the Fundamentalist view, the Catholic Church was not. Thus, on their own view, their identification of the Catholic Church with the Whore is completely impossible! Only ancient, pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem could possibly be the Whore.

 

If Not the Whore, the Bride

The fact that the Catholic Church is singled out by Fundamentalists as the Whore reveals that they intuit the fact it has an important role in God’s plan. No other church gets accused of being the Whore—only the Catholic Church. And it is understandable why: The Catholic Church is the largest Christian body, larger than all other Christian bodies put together, suggesting a prominent place in God’s plan. Fundamentalists assume, without objectively looking at the evidence, that the Catholic Church cannot be the Bride of Christ, so it must be the Whore of Babylon.

Yet the evidence for its true role is plain. The First Vatican Council taught that “the Church itself . . . because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its Catholic unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of credibility and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission” (On the Catholic Faith 3).

So why is the Bride maligned as the Whore? Jesus himself answered the question: “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household” (Matt. 10:25). “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world . . . the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you” (John 15:18–20).

Sources: Hunting the whore of Babylon Tract, Scriptures, Church history, The work of Robert H Brom , The catholic faith