Category: Apologetics

Apologetics #6: Protestant claims that Peter wasn't appointed to the headship of the Apostolic College

24/2/2021

Claim: Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Read Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11). There is no mention in Scripture or history that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

We have all heard it. The denial that St. Peter was made the Vicar of Jesus Christ. The denial that Christ gave to him the Headship over the Apostles. This denial, of course, is needed in order to legitimise the falsely named "Reformation". Because, if Peter is truly the head, then to break from that head would prove one to be outside the Church, and thus outside the saving Faith of Jesus Christ. But, it is common sense that there should be an earthly head.

Whilst on earth, Our Lord was the visible sign of unity, around Whom the Apostles and other disciples gathered, sitting at the feet of that great Teacher and Master of souls. Around the feet of the Divine Preacher, the whole Church gathered, and still gathers, as if lying under the shade of a tree, listening the gentle Voice of Her Spouse. Whilst on earth, He was visible, and therefore the visible Head on earth. But, what should happen after the Ascension, when Christ would ascend to the Father, and be seen no more? The natural question would be: who did Jesus leave in charge on earth?

Think of it like an Empire. The Emperor appoints governors for his Empire, and endows them with his authority. In the same way, Christ bestowed authority on one Apostle in particular, not to supersede Him, but to rule in His Name. This Apostle was St. Peter, who the Holy Church calls "the Prince of the Apostles". The Successor of St. Peter is the Pope, the Supreme Sovereign Pontiff.

So, as around Christ, the whole family of the Church is gathered around the Prince of the Apostles, listening to him, because through him, Christ speaks. When anyone in authority departs from his usual place, he always leaves someone in charge. So, too, did Christ likewise. Specially more so with the Church, since She is the only way to Heaven. What great confusion would there be if Christ left no one in charge, and each Apostle and disciple argued amongst themselves about whom was to take charge, finally leaving one another to found their own churches! What scandal would that be to the Unity of Christ? And what manifest contradictions would there be in what doctrines are to be believed?! If that sounds like Protestantism, well, you now know the cause of the illness! For this reason did He leave St. Peter to be Head of the Church on earth, not to replace Christ, but to speak in His place and to bind the faithful to that saving Truth which Christ entrusted to His Catholic Church (called the Deposit of Faith).

It would be absurd to think, as the Protestants seem to, that Christ left the Church without a governor, without someone we could turn to for guidance and instruction! Is Christ so without heart so as to abandon His beloved Church to be grappled and torn asunder by men? Is He with love that He would leave His sheep without a visible shepherd to follow? Would He leave us in uncertainty about doctrine, so that we wouldn't know the correct way to believe in Him? This is seemingly the Protestant Christ, so heartless, cold and cruel, as to leave poor children without any help. But the true Christ, the Catholic Christ, as it were, is not so heartless, but ever full of compassion gave to us our Shepherd, the man whom we call our Holy Father - the Pope!

I shall use herein the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible in the main for the Scriptural text. Any other version shall be duly noted. Verses from the DR shall be linked to for your reading. Links are in bold red.

(1) Jesus & Peter:
Who is Head of the Church?

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Read Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).

It is rather interesting that the Objection put forward above does not involve any attempt to refute the Catholic interpretation of such verses as Matthew 16:16-19, or John 21:15-17, as is customary amongst Protestants. Instead, we are asked to read some other verses that, we are told, prove the Catholic doctrine false.

(1) The first of these is from St. Luke, which reads: And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. And He said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. But you not so: but he who is the greater among you, let him be as the younger: and he who is the leader, as he that serveth. [22:24-26]

(2) The second is from Ephesians, which reads: And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church, which is his body, and the fullness of him who is filled all in all. [1:22-23]

(3) The third is from Colossians: And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy. [1:18]

(4) And the fourth is from 1 Corinthians: For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. [3:11]

By this, we are told that these verses forbid the idea of Peter being head. Surely, some of these verses seem damning, since Christ is called the "head of the body, the church" and the "foundation...which is laid". Yet, as always, the Protestant extracts these verses out of context, and tries to impose upon them an opposition which is not there, coupled with the fact that the Protestant may not have sufficient understanding of Catholic teaching itself.

Who is greater?

The first text from St. Luke is presented as proof against Rome. Yet, I fail to see how. Jesus is clearly instructing the Apostles in humility in this text. Why? Precisely because of the great Office which He is to give them, that of ruling the Church [Cf. Acts. 20:28]. For this reason He says "but he who is greater among you [Peter], let him be as the younger" and also "and he who is the leader [Peter], as he that serveth". So the very text used to condemn the idea of a leader, supports the idea that the Apostles have a leader!

Since Christ explicitly mentions a leader, rather than forbidding the idea, He is, thus, instructing this leader on humility. The leader, and indeed the rest of the Apostles, are not to use their authority to lord it over the people. Peter, the leader, ironically repeats this teaching of Christ, warning the bishops (the Apostles and their successors) not to "lord it over the clergy" [1 Pet. 5:2-3]. Peter is repeating what his Master has taught him - to use your authority responsibly. The fact that St. Peter is instructing the other Apostles and their successors in the teachings of Christ, and presents to them the rule by which they are to govern the Church, is a clear sign of his primacy over the Apostolic College and the Universal Church.

It also worthy to note that Christ uses a generic term, "leader". He does not directly name Peter here, but rather says "and he who is leader". Did He not know that Peter was the leader? Of course; but not Peter alone but also his Successors in his Chair, and so He did not direct His teaching just at Peter alone, but rather to Peter's heirs in the Petrine Office, and so says "and he who is leader", that is, "I tell you Peter to not use your supreme authority which I have given you to lord it over the Church, even as I, Almighty God, have not lorded it over you, but rather have served you as a Servant; and this rule of Mine is binding upon you and your Successors for ever. Teach them, Peter, and remind them of My rule: to observe My meekness, and to be fathers of children, and not masters of slaves. But doing this, you shall perfectly reflect My meekness and thus will glorify Me."

In order to properly understand what is taking place in this text of St. Luke, let us turn to a Catholic commentary. The commentary for the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition New Testament Study Bible states in reference to verse 26: The disciples must not confuse worldly honour and recognition with spiritual greatness. The shepherds of God's people must instead imitate Christ in their humility and selfless concern for those under their care (Jn. 13:12-15; CCC 894: "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.)

So, from this commentary, we begin to understand what is taking place. Our Lord is instructing His Apostles in right exercise of government in the Church, especially directing His teaching to the "greater" and "leader" of the Apostles. So, Christ verifies that the Apostles have a leader, and we all know his name: Peter.

In fact, in order to clarify that Peter is head, St. Peter is named the most after Christ, and is always named first and apart from the other Apostles. And to clarify it more for those who doubt, St. Matthew writes the list of the Apostles (Matt. 10:2-4), and says "the first, Simon who is called Peter". In Greek the word used for "first" is πρῶτος (protos), which means:

1) first in time or place
1a) in any succession of things or persons
2) first in rank
2a) influence, honour
2b) chief
2c) principal
3) first, at the first.

  The word "chief" is sometimes translated in Latin as "princeps", meaning prince. So, St. Matthew describes Peter as the first in succession, rank, influence and honour, chief/prince of the Apostles. Pretty strong language being used considering, according to the Protestants, that Peter isn't the head of the Church! Using that language, St. Matthew might mistaken people into thinking Peter was the head of the Apostles! Of course, we Catholics have no problem with this, since by using such language, St. Matthew proves to us that Peter was made head of the Apostles. And thus Rome's teaching on this matter is proved.

Simon....confirm thy brethren

But what is also interesting, is what Christ says after this, which our Protestant doesn't direct us to read: For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at table? but I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth. And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: And I assign to you, as my Father hath assigned to me, a kingdom, That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22: 27-32)

The text I have emphasised is rather telling. Christ assigned a Kingdom to the Apostles, that is, the Church. And they shall sit upon thrones to judge Israel, that is, the Church. Then Our Lord says to Simon, directly and personally, that Satan wished to have the Apostles, but that He has prayed for Simon's faith alone, that he may confirm the Apostles. Now, why would Christ only pray for Simon's faith? and why would He direct Simon to "confirm thy brethren"?

The Haydock commentary says on this:

That thy faith fail not. The faith of Peter, established by the coming of the Holy Ghost, hath never failed, nor can fail, being built upon a rock, which is Christ Himself, and being guided by the Spirit of truth, as Christ promised. (John xv. 26. and xvi. 13.) --- And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren, even all the other apostles and bishops, over whom I have made and constituted thee and thy successors the chief head, that such a head being appointed by divine authority, all occasions of schisms and divisions might cease, says St. Jerome. (Witham) --- Admire the superabundance of the divine patience. That the disciple might not lose courage, He promised him pardon before he has committed the crime, and restores him again to his apostolic dignity, saying, confirm thy brethren. (St. Cyril) [Emphasis mine]

The RSV 2nd Catholic Edition New Testament Study Bible says regarding this:

In reference to the "kingdom", the same commentary says thus: Jesus confers royal authority on the apostles and entrusts them with the Church on earth (12:32). Jesus alludes to the prophetic vision of Daniel 7, in which God gives a worldwide kingdom to the Son of man, who in turn gives it to the saints (Dan. 7:18, 22, 27). In context, these events coincide with the Son of man's heavenly enthronement (Dan 7:13-14). The historical unfolding of this prophecy begins with the Ascension of Jesus and the birth of the Church (Mk 14:62; 16:19; Acts. 7:56)

In reference to the "thrones", the same commentary says: Seats of royal honor. As the new Davidic king, Jesus gives his apostles a share in his kingdom, enabling them to exercise his royal authority over God's people (1:32-33; Mt. 19:28). See note on Mt. 16:19. The role of the apostles is described in terms that recall how long King David's cabinet of ministers ruled Israel from thrones in Jerusalem (Ps. 122 (121): 3-5; Is 22:20-23).

So, altogether, we see here that "the leader" is Peter, Who Christ is teaching to be like Him "as he that serveth" (in fact, the Pope is called "the Servant of the Servants of God"), because Christ has given him, along with his brother Apostles, not only authority on earth, but "a kingdom" in which they "may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel", which is both the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Kingdom of the Church. Their authority, according to Christ Himself, ends not at death, but continues in Heaven. And, pray tell, what shall they judge? Whether the faithful have kept the teachings of the Apostles [Acts 2:42], have also kept the Apostolic Traditions [2 Thess. 2:14], and have imitated the Apostles [1 Corinth. 4:16; 1 Corinth. 11:1], have kept the Gospel they preached [Gal. 1:8; 2 Thess. 1:8], have obeyed the lawful rulers of the Church [Hebrews 13:17] and such like. This is what they, with God's leave, will judge.

The co-operation of men with God in our salvation

The underlying premise behind the denial of Peter's peculiar authority stems from the Protestant belief that since man is so depraved by sin, he has no free will, and therefore unable to do anything: even co-operate with God in his own salvation. Luther, Calvin and others denied the free will of man, and thus a man with no free will can not be Vicar of Christ. Now, whilst a Protestant may personally accept free will, his theology denies it. Denial of free will is inherent in Protestantism. It is the reason why they deny the efficacy of good works (man can do no good), the Priesthood, the Mass, etc.

It is a most merciful thing for a Catholic to know, that God, although the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, by no means excludes the redeemed from participating in their own salvation. Indeed, the very fact that Christ commissioned His Apostles, mere men, to preach to other men and guide them into the True Faith, is a clear sign that God uses men to advance the salvation of the world, chooses men to administer to other men; not that He has any need of them, but that He shows His love and Paternity by such co-operation. For just as Moses co-operated with God in the administering of the Old Covenant, so does the Church co-operate with God in the administering of the New.

And Catholics understand that no one co-operated more perfectly or fully than the Blessed Virgin Mary, who gave her free consent to being the Mother of God, Jesus Christ, when she said "fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum" (Luke 1:38: be it done unto me according to thy word). The Latin word "fiat" means:

1. An arbitrary or authoritative command or order to do something; an effectual decree.
2. Authorization, permission or (official) sanction.

Thus, Our Lady gave her permission and sanction for the Word of God to be made flesh in her womb, because the Most High would not that she should be coerced, but commanded the very Prince of Messengers, St. Gabriel, to personally rehearse His message to her, and when doing so, to show her all honour and deference (he addressed her with the Greek chairo, or Latin ave, which both mean "hail", a formal salutation to one's superior, thus showing her to be Gabriel's superior. This could only be if she is, as Catholics believe, Queen of Angels), and by obtaining her consent, the Salvation of the world was born of her. In this, she becomes to us a model of perfect humility and obedience toward God. And seeing that these same virtues most pleased the Lord, how could later Christians not take her for their rightful model, knowing that by imitating her, they are imitating Christ, and thus pleasing their Heavenly Father?

We see in Scripture the co-operation between God and men; God is the true Judge of men and their works [Ps. 49:6; Matt. 16:27, etc], yet God permits the Saints to judge with Him [1 Corinth. 6:2-3]; that even though Christ be the one Mediator [1 Tim. 2:5], yet does St. Paul also call Moses a mediator [Gal. 3:19]; that although Christ makes intercession for us [Rom. 8:34], yet we are called to intercede for each other [1 Tim. 2:1] (to mediate and to intercede are synonymous with each other); that although God be Redeemer, yet Moses is also called a redeemer [Acts. 7:35]. None of these are done in opposition to Christ, but rather are done because of Christ, precisely because Christ does them first. We imitate Him, and glorify Him in our imitation. So, with this in view, why can't Peter be head of the Church, even as Christ is Head of the Church?

Jesus, Head of the Church

Thus, we can here refer to the texts of (2), (3) and (4).

Now, to the Protestant, these words of St. Paul seem to be damning for the Catholic teaching that Peter, and his Successors, are the heads of the Church. Yet there is no problem for Catholics (as I have mentioned in the last section). We know that Christ is the true Head of the Church, and that He alone rules the Church as King. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us: 792 Christ "is the head of the body, the Church." He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, "in everything he [is] preeminent," especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things. So, the Church knows who is Her Head; it is Christ, of Whose Body She is.

But, how can Catholics, who accept that Christ is the Head, admit another head? Well, St. Paul says, "wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus." [Hebrews 3:1] Now, since Christ is called "apostle" does that mean the Twelve aren't Apostles? Does that mean that we have been "stealing" from Christ by referring to these mere men as Apostles? When St. Peter mentions Jesus as being the "shepherd and bishop of your souls" [1 Pet. 2:25], does this forbid any other shepherd or bishop? If so, then why do multiple Protestant "churches" have men who call themselves bishops? Surely this is stealing from Christ!

When Christ taught us to call no man father but God [Matt. 23:9], was He contradicting Himself when He commanded for us to honour our fathers? [Luke 18:20] Such a thought is repugnant!

Yet, the reason why the Twelve are called Apostles, Shepherds and Bishops is because Christ was the first. They share in the same titles and the same authority as Christ, because He gave them the power. As Apostles, Shepherds and Bishops they reflect and show forth the glory of Christ in those functions, just as Bishops, called "high priests", reflect the true High Priest, Jesus Christ.

So, if giving to men that which belongs to God does no injury to God, but rather glorifies Him because by joining these titles to men we recognise the great dignity they carry, how then can one deny that Peter be called by that which is proper to Christ, namely, being head of the Church?

And so in reference to (4), although Christ be the corner-stone or foundation, the Apostles are also called the foundation upon which the Church is built [Eph. 2:20], and thus they, in turn, are built upon Christ, Who is the Chief of them. And when St. John, in his Apocalypse, described the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Church, as having twelve foundations in which are inscribed the names of the Twelve Apostles, [21:14] was he denying the Chief Foundation, Jesus Christ our Lord? God forbid that the very Apostle who so loved Our Lord should also deny Him! Thus, if no injury is done to Christ as foundation even with the Apostles being named the same, then how can one deny Peter being head even as Christ is Head?

In all these things we see that such people are named by so many titles because God is named first. And if the very Scriptures, inspired by the Holy Spirit, does no damage to the Person of God by giving His titles to mere men, then how can a Protestant denounce the Church who, observing Christ as Head, names Peter as head and Vicar of that Head also? To denounce such a practise would be to denounce the very Scriptures, and that is something the Church refuses to contemplate! Rather, Holy Mother Church takes the Scriptures as Her basis, and does only what the Holy Spirit has sanctioned, as expressed clearly in Holy Writ.

Church Fathers on Peter's Primacy

I shall here quote from some Church Fathers to prove that the early Christians understood that Peter was given a primacy over the Church.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this [Roman] Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

“And he says to him [Peter] again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him [Peter] that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church [Rome] whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).
”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle.” Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

“And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him [Julius] appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.” Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

“Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.” Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344).

“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.” Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

“…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

“Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion.” Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).

“The Holy Synod said: ‘Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:–‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse.” Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, 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 Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

To read more, go here.

(2) Was St. Peter in Rome?

There is no mention in Scripture or history that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."

I shall start here by answering that last sentence regarding St. Clement. That claim is completely false, since St. Clement, who was actually the fourth Bishop of Rome, was Pope from 88-99 AD. That is, he was Pope during the 1st Century! How, then, could he deny the evidence of his own Century? Secondly, he was personally ordained by St. Peter, along with Linus and Cletus (both of them being Popes after Peter). St. Clement is named in the New Testament [Philip. 4:3]. You can read St. Clement's epistle, and will come to realise that he said no such thing that our adversary claims he said. Naturally, we are not informed as to a source for this supposed quote. What gives its falsity away is the use of "1st century": a phrase that wasn't used at the time. This is the give away that this quote is fakery.

Does Scripture say Peter was in Rome?

Now let us turn to the first part of the claim. According to our Protestant, there is no mention in Scripture or history that Peter was in Rome. Of course, Protestants need this supposed absence of Peter from Rome in order to justify his not being Bishop of Rome. Sadly, however, there is proof of his being in Rome, maybe not so much from Scripture, but plentiful it is in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers. It must be first noted that Peter didn't go straight to Rome. Most forget, or simply don't know, that he was first Bishop of Antioch, before leaving that See to go to Rome to found the Apostolic See.

In his first Epistle, St. Peter writes that "the church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark. " [1 Pet. 5:13] The "Mark" he mentions here is St. Mark the Evangelist, the author of the Gospel of St. Mark. However, what we need to take a note of here is his use of the name "Babylon". Now, most of us are familiar with Babylon. It was the capital of the Babylonian Empire, and was the figure of a sinful, decadent city. The name is now used to described a wicked, Godless society. Let us work out who this Babylon is.

In St. Peter's day, the wicked, Godless, heathenistic, hedonistic Babylon was which city? Let me give you a few clues: It was the seat of the divine Caesars; home of the Roman pantheon; home of the corrupt Senate; home of trade and commerce; mistress over a vast Empire. Yes that's right: Rome! Thus, when he talks about the church in Babylon, he is speaking of the Church of Rome. Thus, he is writing from Rome. Thus, he has to be in Rome to be writing from Rome! Sorry if I have had to spell that out, but there it is.

In fact, our Protestant here who sent me this claim, said at the end of their message: BRETHREN! The Word of God commands us to get out of Babylon, saying: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4). [See Objection #21] So, if Protestants understand that Babylon is a code for (heathen) Rome, then why not that the Babylon St. Peter is writing about is the very same heathen Rome?! How is it Rome for St. John , but not for St. Peter?

Church Fathers on Peter being in Rome

Here are some quotes from Church Fathers:

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.” Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican [Peter's tomb] or to the Ostian way [Paul's tomb], you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church [in Rome].'” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

“[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

‘We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross.” Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

“Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.” Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

“Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome.” Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

“[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome…” Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

To read the rest of the Church Fathers please read them here.

Comments

Apologetics #5: Protestant claims the Church invents new doctrine, Part 3

23/2/2021

Comments

The Roman Catholic Church says it never changes; yet it invents new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible / Objections to the Magisterium & Sacred Tradition

In this section, let us look at what the Scriptures and the Church Fathers have to say of Sacred Tradition.

When one logically thinks through the Protestant doctrines concerning Sola Scriptura, it becomes evident just how illogical they truly are.

The teachings which comprise Sola Scriptura say that Scripture is:

(1) the sole source of Christian doctrine - Yet how can this be when before any Gospel was written; before any Epistle came forth from the hands of Paul or Peter, James or Jude; the Apostles were already preaching the doctrines of the Faith? And why is it that the very Scriptures that we are told are the sole source, are silent on this very principle? We are told Scripture is inspired and profitable, but how does that equate it to being the sole source of doctrine? Indeed, St. Paul tells us that good works, too, are profitable for men (Titus 3:8); but does that necessitate we believe that good works alone are the source of salvation? If the Bible were the source of all Christian doctrine: 1stly, it would be no Bible but a catechism; 2ndly, its status as such is contradicted by the very fact - a fact that irks the Protestants - that no one of them agree on even the most fundamental teachings of that Bible; for one accepts infant baptism, yet another rejects; one accepts free will, another rejects; one accepts the Trinity, another rejects; and all this they lay at the feet of the Bible. Each claims the Bible teaches their creeds; they thus dare accuse the Scriptures - and also the One Who inspired them - of being contradictory and confused.

Also, in order for the Bible to be the sole source of doctrine, it must necessitate that it have been always in existence from the beginning; yet we know that the Canon of Scripture was not set until the 4th century, when such councils as Rome, Hippo and Carthage confirmed those 73 books which comprise our Canon, and this was the one used at Rome. Before these councils affirmed the Canon, in which we find four Gospels, there were 27 gospels that were circulated; how did the Church know which were false? She knew from Tradition, viz, the oral Revelation handed down through the Apostolic Succession. She compared these multitude of gospels to the oral teachings She received from Christ, and judged the former to be in contradiction to the latter. We may also state that the Church was preaching the Faith for circa 400 years before the Bible was compiled, and the first Ecumenical Council, that of Nicaea in Ad 325, already defined dogma afore the Bible's compilation.

Lastly, the very Scriptures themselves teach us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth [1 Tim. 3:15], but the Bible is nowhere called such. Again, it did not exist until much later on. Surely, the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament, and the books of the Old, were already written and thus contained truth, yet they had not heretofore been stamped with ecclesial approbation. Thus, it requires the existence not only of the Church, but of Tradition along with it, so that, moved by the Holy Spirit, the Church could finally set down those written teachings which the same Spirit inspired. We may also end with noting a great pain for the Protestants: that they, who so abuse the Catholic Church and slander Her, must also accept Her approbation for the Bible they hold - or rather, those books still retained after Luther's mutilation of Scripture. They unwittingly accept the very authority they protest against.

(2) the sole norm of doctrine - Since we have established that the Bible cannot be the sole source of doctrine, thus also it cannot be the sole norm of doctrine. The norm of doctrine is the Church, who has faithfully preserved God's entire Revelation, both written and oral. We may ask: how does a Protestant find Biblical norm regarding bioethics when the same Bible touches no such topics? Whence did God pronounce on stem-cell research? How can the Bible be the sole norm, when it doesn't even contain all of Divine Revelation, as St. John expressly mentions [John 21:25]?

(3) the supreme, infallible and sole authority in the Church - According the Protestant Religion, Christ left infallible teachings to fallible men. But such a thing is absurd, for how would these men know that their interpretation of the Scriptures was the true one? Indeed, as noted above, we see that Protestants disagree with one another using only the Bible alone, showing that its infallible authority cannot be the sole one, for if it is, it is found most wanting; and I would not dare to denounce Scripture to be wanting in any thing. Instead, when God gave us His infallible Revelation He also left with it an infallible judge to properly interpret it, and that infallibility was left with the Roman Church, and exercised by the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him. We may see, in the civil affairs, how laws are judged and interpreted by judges and other such officials who have the competent authority imposed upon them; for what society would leave its laws to the private judgment of ignorant men? How can it be that even Protestants agree that mere man-made civil laws and constitutions require an equal authority to rightly judge them, yet charge that the Divine Law of Almighty God was left to ignorant men to privately interpret? How can civil laws be judged more fittingly than God's Law?!

(4) that every single statement, doctrine, command, of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance, without the use of reason - This proposition is not only illogical, but also highly dangerous. Firstly, for Scripture is both a product of Divine Reason and human reason; 2ndly, without the use of reason, Our Lord's teachings regarding cutting off one's members that cause us to sin would have to be taken literally, which would necessitate the mutilation of body parts. Yet, we know that Our Saviour asked no such things of, because we use reason to discern the true meaning of His words.

We may also note that Luther had an aversion to reason, even going so far as to call it the Devil's handmaid; indeed he had to have such an aversion, for how could one reasonably believe what Luther proposed, or that which other pretended Reformers had divined? Even to our own day, we have many Protestants who accept absurd ideas, because they abandon reason when they interpret the Scriptures, exempli gratia: some Protestants interpret the Heavenly Jerusalem in the Apocalypse as being a literal city which shall descend from the heavens; this city is, in our modern measurements, said to be bigger than the sub-continent of India! Do they really believe such an absurd idea? Indeed they do, and they must abandon reason to accept such. Yet the Church has defined that with the light of natural reason, man can come to know the existence of the Most High; but supernatural faith is required to believe all the doctrines which He commands us to accept. Faith, then, completes what reason begins.

We may also ask: why did God endow us with reason, if we are not to use it? If reason must be used to interpret civil laws, then how could it not be used to interpret Divine Law, which same Law contains most weighty and grave matters that pertain to the eternal destiny of men?

(5) sufficient, that is, that Scripture has no deficiencies to be supplied by oral tradition, pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, Bishops, theologians or Councils - Most laughable is that Protestants accept the pronouncements of the aforementioned authorities for their belief in the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, the Natures of Christ, the Person of the Holy Spirit, etc. If Scripture be sufficient to the degree given it by the Protestants, then where does it define the doctrines thus mentioned? Whence does it speak of the very intricate details of the Holy Trinity? If one asks a Protestant where the doctrines of the Trinity are defined, he would have to admit they were defined by the the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (Ad 325), presided over by Pope St. Sylvester I's legates, and the bishops. So, the Protestant must accept the oral Tradition and pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, bishops and theologians of an Ecumenical Council; the same which they reject!

(6) Perspicuous, that is, that the Scriptures sets forth all the doctrines on Christian faith and life in most clear terms that both the unlearned and learned can understand, and that Scripture needs not wait for any Pontiff, theologian or Council to make clear its teachings,

(7) its own authentic and infallible interpreter, that is, no human authority, or even reason, is needed to divine its true sense.

(8) That is it is the privilege and duty of all Christians to read and study the Scriptures,

(9) That every man can use his private interpretation to come to the knowledge of saving truth.

Mark 16:15 - And He said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. - Jesus here does not instruct the Apostles to write, but to preach, that is, to orally announce the Gospel. Any writing is accidental to their mission, not natural to it.

Mark 3:14: And he made that twelve should be with him, and that he might send them to preach. - Again, Jesus does not tell the Apostles to write, but to preach.

Luke 10:16: He that heareth you, heareth me. - The oral Gospel is preached by Jesus to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the world. No command to write.

Luke 24:47: And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. - Again, no mention of writing.

Acts 15:27 - We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. - So, the Gospel was transmitted by word of mouth, not by writing.

Romans 10:17: Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ. - Why doesn't St. Paul mention anything about reading a book? How could he, when so many of his hearers could not read!

[1] - 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6; The imposition of hands to pass on authority comes from the Patriarchs of old, who imposed their hands upon their sons to pass on to them their authority and the blessing of God. In the Church, this imposition of hands takes on the new meaning of passing the Apostolic Authority from one man to another, as a father to his son. Priests and bishops have their authority passed to them by the imposition of hands by other bishops (who have the fullness of the priesthood).
-----------------------------------
[2] - 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:15-16.
-----------------------------------
[3] - The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament says about this verse: Timothy is the second link in a chain of succession that stretches from the apostles of the first century to the bishops of the present day. Having received Paul's authority and mission, he is charged with passing on both the priestly ministry and the apostolic faith to the next generation. Timothy must transmit these traditions in the same way he received them from Paul: through public instruction, the sacramental imposition of hands, and the witness of his life (1:6, 13-14; 3:10; 1 Tim 5:22; 6:20).
-------------------------------------
[4] Inter Insigniores, No 4: Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value. However, the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Ti 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate. [Emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------
[5] - The Ignatius Commentary says about this verse: The teaching that Paul handed over to his readers, whether in writing or by oral instruction. This was the standard against which doctrinal claim (2:5) and moral behaviour (3:6) were to be measured and judged. Even Paul's personal example was a form of apostolic catechesis (3:7-9; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Tim 1:13) (CCC 75-76, 82). - The apostles did not hand down everything in writing; many unwritten things were handed down as well, and both written and unwritten are worthy of belief. So let us also regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Thessalonians 4).

St. John Chrysostom's actual quote on 2 Thess. 2:15: Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the Tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a Tradition, seek no farther.

Comments

Apologetics #4: Protestant claims the Church invents new doctrines, Part 2

22/2/2021

Comments

The Roman Catholic Church says it never changes; yet it invents new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible / Objections to the Magisterium & Sacred Tradition

In this section, I shall comment on the verses that are put forward to prove the falsity of Sacred Tradition.

5] 2 Tim. 2:2, "The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." How can this verse be used to validate Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition when its context is that Paul was instructing Timothy to entrust what he said to faithful men who can then teach others? Nothing is there about then transferring that knowledge down an apostolic line with intended apostolic authority.

This comment denotes its author misunderstands what Tradition is, but which I have explained in Section I. Since Tradition is the handing on of the Faith, what St. Paul is asking St. Timothy to do is exactly what Sacred Tradition is: passing on Divine Revelation from one generation to the next. This passing on (traditio) is secured by the Apostolic Succession of bishops throughout the ages.

This verse also shows Apostolic Succession, since Timothy was made a bishop by St. Paul, an Apostle, who by imposition of hands passed on his authority to Timothy [1], which same authority St. Paul received from St. Peter and the other Apostles, and who is now directing Timothy to follow his example by entrusting Divine Revelation to faithful men, that is, to men who have proven orthodoxy and are learned in the Faith; which same men are able to teach others, or as the Douay-Rheims translates it, are "fit to teach others". St. Paul doesn't tell Timothy to chose any Tom, Dick or Harry for this ministry, but only those men who are proven. And by this we understand that there are no better nor more fit men for preaching than the priests and deacons, which St. Paul himself mentions. Neither Paul nor Timothy were ignorant of what St. Peter later wrote regarding the unlearned and their twisting of Scripture according to private interpretation (which Protestants engage in). [2] Thus St. Paul is really asking St. Timothy to ordain faithful men to preach the Gospel. In this way, St. Paul's authority passes to Timothy and to the other men Timothy appoints. [3]

And yet, even if we admit that St. Paul here did not mean ordained clerics, but laymen, this still would not destroy Apostolic Succession or Sacred Tradition because these men would be receiving religious instruction by their bishop, St. Timothy, who was taught and ordained by another bishop, St. Paul, who himself was taught and ordained by another bishop, which was St. Peter based on Galatians 1:18. So, Apostolic Succession has secured the Deposit of Faith which Timothy will expound to the faithful men he is teaching. The Deposit was originally handed on orally, until the Holy Spirit inspired certain men to write down their teachings. This is Sacred Tradition at work: oral and written teachings passed on from one generation to the next. I, today, cannot learn nor teach the Faith unless the Deposit was secured from nigh 2,000 years of Apostolic Succession. The fact that the Gospel has been perfectly preserved by the Church for so long, even after heresies have arisen to rob Her of the truth (including Protestantism), is a sign of Divine Intervention. Only God could keep the Church preaching the Gospel for so long. This is, also, a sign of the Church's Divine Commission, and a proof that She has been founded by Jesus Christ; unlike Protestant sects who, over the years they have existed, have changed their doctrines and swayed to and fro from one fancy to another.

6] 1 Cor. 11:2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." How can this verse be used to validate Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition when its context is either about avoiding idolatry or the restating the tradition concerning head-coverings, authority, and prayer. There is nothing here about RCC Sacred Tradition where authority and tradition is passed down from apostle to apostle.

Let us make a simple exposition of this.

1) If this text refers to avoiding idolatry, that is part of the Sacred Deposit, and thus part of Sacred Tradition. Divine Revelation warns us to stay from idolatry, and the Church warns us against idolatry, and even warns us to be on guard lest, in our piety, we corrupt the simple veneration of the Saints and make it into idolatry.

2) If it is about authority or prayer, they are both part of the Sacred Deposit, and so are part of Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church has the true authority which Christ has endowed Her with, and the Sacred Scriptures teach us to obey the authorities of the Church, and to be in communion with them. In terms of prayer, there is no greater nor more pleasing prayer that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the highest prayer the Church can offer to God, the greatest adoration She can render to Him, since the Mass is none other than Christ the Priest offering Himself as a Pure Sacrifice to the Father; the Once-for-all Sacrifice re-presented to the Father on the Altar.

3) If it is about head-coverings for women, the Church has determined that this is a custom, or discipline, which is not part of Sacred Tradition, but only a human tradition that can, and has, been changed as the Church sees fit. [4] Customs and disciplines are merely human traditions, although venerable, which can be changed if required. However, it should be noted that such ancient customs or disciplines should not be suppressed or discontinued except for a very grave pastoral reason. The ceasing of the enforcement of the veiling of women in Church was done, it has to be said, not for any theological or grave pastoral reason, but simply because during the 1960's certain officials of the Church wanted the Church to look more "modern". Ironically, the use of veils for Catholic women is becoming more popular, even amongst young women. Another custom is the use of Latin in the Sacred Liturgy. The Catholic Church is made of various Rites, each having their own language. The largest Rite is the Latin Rite, which, as its name suggests, uses Latin. After the Second Vatican Council, the use of the Latin was (wrongfully and against the Council's intentions) abandoned in favour of purely vernacular liturgies. Again, ironically, more and more Catholics, especially young Catholics, are returning back to exclusive Latin Masses.

We have to ask some questions regarding the traditions St. Paul mentions here.

1) Was St. Paul one of the Twelve? No he wasn't.

2) So where did St. Paul learn of the traditions he is handing on? From the original Apostles.

3) Does he mention any specific Apostle? Yes he does. St. Paul tells us in Galatians 1:16-18 that after the Lord appeared to him on the road to Damascus, he fled to Arabia for three years, and afterwards returned to Jerusalem to see Peter for fifteen days. Why? Because he had to have St. Peter, the Pope, confirm his election to the episcopacy [as every bishop does], give him Apostolic Authority, and to instruct him in the Christian faith. Thus, what St. Paul is handing on is none other what he has received from Peter: i.e. Apostolic, or Sacred, Tradition! This is why in 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26, when talking about the Blessed Eucharist, he starts by saying that he has "received of the Lord" what he is handing on to them. Now, Christ Himself did not teach his about the Eucharist directly; rather St. Paul is here saying: What I preach here came from Christ through the Apostles to me, and now I hand it over to you. In this way, Sacred Tradition, that is, the transmission of Revelation, is being fulfilled here. St. Paul wasn't present to witness the Last Supper (or First Mass!), so he clearly received it from the other Apostles, most likely from St. Peter when he visited him for fifteen days. Thus, St. Paul is here handing to the Corinthians the very Tradition he has received from St. Peter and the other Apostles.

7] 2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." How can this verse be used to validate Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition when its context is about the return of Christ, not about apostolic succession? There is nothing here about RCC Sacred Tradition where authority and tradition is passed down from apostle to apostle.

This verse clearly validates Sacred Tradition since St. Paul mentions "the traditions" which the Thessalonians were taught "by word of mouth", that is, oral tradition, "or by letter from us", that is, written tradition. We have to keep reminding ourselves: what is Sacred Tradition? It is the handing on of the Faith in diverse forms: oral, written, liturgical, artistic, etc. St. Paul is referring to two of those modes of tradition: oral and written. And this verse obviously doesn't refer to Apostolic Succession as he is asking the Thessalonians at large to hold the Faith; he is not directing his writing to any specific person. When he writes to St. Timothy or St. Titus, he mentions the Succession.

The context here is not about the return of Christ, but of the obtaining of the glory of the Lord [2 Thess. 2:12-14]. He connects the obtaining of the glory of the Lord with keeping the traditions, meaning you cannot receive the former if you don't hold the latter. In fact, in 3:6 of this same letter he says: And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us. [5] What tradition is this? Non other than the Gospel itself preached by word and letter, and by other diverse means.

8] 2 Thess. 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." How can this verse be used to validate Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition when its context is about working hard and not being idle? There is nothing here about RCC Sacred Tradition where authority and tradition is passed down from apostle to apostle.

See Note [5] below that explains how St. Paul used his very actions as a mode for tradition.

9] Matt. 15:4-6, Jesus said, "For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ 5 “But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Does this teaching of Jesus speak against tradition in general or a specific kind of tradition? If so, which kind?

In order to answer this question, we must first put the above quote into perspective, as it has been isolated from its context. If we put the above quote into context, we immediately understand what Our Lord was condemning.

Then came to Him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But He answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the Commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee. And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the Commandment of God for your tradition. Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth Me with their lips: but their heart is far from Me. And in vain do they worship Me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. [Matt. 15:1-8; Douay-Rheims]

Some suitable commentary may help to understand this passage. I quote here from Bishop Challoner's commentary.

"The gift": That is, the offering that I shall make to God, shall be instead of that which should be expended for thy profit. This tradition of the Pharisees was calculated to enrich themselves; by exempting children from giving any further assistance to their parents, if they once offered to the temple and the priests, that which should have been the support of their parents. But this was a violation of the law of God, and of nature, which our Saviour here condemns.

"Commandments of men": The doctrines and commandments here reprehended are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God,) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, etc., without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the Holy Church, touching fasts, festivals, etc., these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's holy Word, and all Christian piety: neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men; because they proceed not from mere human authority; but from that which Christ has established in His Church; whose pastors He has commanded us to hear and obey, even as Himself. St. Luke 10. 16; St. Matt. 18. 17.

It becomes evident that Christ was condemning man-made traditions that circumvented the Law of God. Note that Our Lord does not condemn tradition in general, but only those traditions that transgress the Law of God. Naturally, Apostolic Tradition is the very Tradition of Christ Himself, for He commanded the Apostles and their Successors to hand down His Doctrines, and as Challoner above mentions, the Church Herself is so imbued with His Authority, that whenever She establishes a law, such as times and lengths of fastings, this is to be received as if Christ Himself had directly commanded it. Such is the reverence Catholics show to their Holy Mother Church, who Christ Himself has founded to minister to us in His Name.

It is naturally evident that some traditions of men are bad, whilst others are good. Sadly, most Protestants cannot tell the difference, and consider all tradition as bad and contrary to the teachings of Scripture, even though they themselves engage in the very tradition they claim to condemn. Many of these same Protestants have problems with Catholic tradition, but have no problem with celebrating birthdays, anniversaries, the handing down of family customs and heirlooms, all of which are man-made traditions. And to say nothing of civil or political traditions, which have been handed down through the centuries! When the United States was founded, did God command that her citizens forever observe the 4th of July as a holiday? Of course not, because such an observance is purely a human tradition that - alas! - even Protestants keep! But, is keeping such a man-made tradition contrary to the Law of God?

Many traditions provide stability in an ever-changing world, so long as they are not contrary to the laws laid down by God, whether moral law, natural law, etc. Naturally, if we find something worth handing down, we just tend to do it. I doubt God ever judged anyone damned because they observed some civil holiday, or even some religious holiday like Christmas or Easter. Many Protestants - like the Pharisees of old - are far too scrupulous about the externals of such festivals - such as condemning the use of trees or eggs in these festivals - rather than judging the interior intentions, which is to celebrate the Nativity and Execution of Salvation, respectively.

Incidentally, it must be added that the attendance of Church on Sundays was never ordered by God, and was a tradition established by the Apostles. Thus, from a Protestant view, this is a tradition of men, and must therefore be wrong. Yet, most Protestants attend church on Sundays, despite it being a purely human tradition. From a Catholic point of view, we have no problem with this, since the Apostles had Divine Right to establish such a tradition, because they were directly given the authority by Christ to do such a thing, and Christ Himself has, over the centuries, that such a tradition - although established by the Apostles - was actually started by Divine Inspiration, and repeatedly Christ Himself has made it know of His approval of it, and even warns those who break His Holy Day.

10] Mark 7:8-9, "‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ 8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” " Do you see this verse as a warning about the tradition of men? If so, what are the traditions of men?

It is clear that the only traditions of men Christ warns against are those which contradict the laws which God has laid down. The traditions of men are, as the name implies, traditions created by men. In the context of the Church, even traditions that are not directly commanded by God - such as fasting for Lent - and which are the product of the Church's faith, are to be received with reverence, since they are ordained by the Church, who has the right to bind and loose laws upon the faithful. Yet, respecting long established laws, it is usually considered a scandal if centuries old custom is abrogated.

Lastly, in the the verse quoted above, Our Lord condemns the Pharisees for claiming their traditions were doctrines from God, rather than affirming that they were merely human. Interestingly, even after all this condemnation, Christ does not deny that the Pharisees have the authority to bind the Jewish people to pious customs.

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men's shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them. [Matt. 23:1-4; Douay-Rheims; Emphasis mine]

Some commentary from Fr. Haydock on this passage with help to enlighten our understanding.

The Scribes. They, who professed the greatest zeal for the law of Moses, and gloried in being the interpreters of it, sat upon the chair of Moses, succeeded to his authority of governing the people of God, of instructing them in His law, and of disclosing to them His will. Such, therefore, as did not depart from the letter of the law, were called Scribes. But such as professed something higher, and separated themselves from the crowd, as better than the ordinary class of men, were called Pharisees, which signifies, separated. (Origen) --- God preserveth the truth of the Christian religion in the apostolic See of Rome, which in the New Law answers to the chair of Moses, notwithstanding the disedifying conduct of some few of its bishops. Yes, though a traitor, as vile as Judas himself, were a bishop thereof, it would not be prejudicial to the integrity of the faith of God's Church, or to the ready obedience and perfect submission of sincere good Christians, for whom our Lord has made this provision, when he says: do that which they say, but do not as they do. (St. Augustine, Ep. clxv.)

All therefore whatsoever they shall say. St. Augustine, in his defence of the Apostolic See, thus argues, contra lit. Petil. "Why dost thou call the Apostolic Chair the chair of pestilence? If, for the men that sit therein, I ask: did our Lord Jesus Christ, on account of the Pharisees, reflect upon the chair, wherein they sat? Did He not commend that chair of Moses, and, preserving the honour of the chair, reprove them? For He sayeth: they have sat on the chair of Moses. All therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do. These points if you did well consider, you would not, for the men whom you defame, blaspheme the Apostolic See, wherewith you do not hold communion." (lib. ii. chap. 51) And again, chap. 61 Ibid. "Neither on account of the Pharisees, to whom you maliciously compare us, did our Lord command the chair of Moses to be forsaken; (in which chair He verily figured His own) for He warned the people to do what they say, and not what they do, and that the holiness of the chair be in no case forsaken, nor the unity of the flock divided, on account of the wicked lives of the pastors." --- Christ does not tell them to observe every thing, without exception, that the Pharisees should say to them; for, (as it was observed in a previous chapter) many superstitions and false ordinances had obtained amongst them, corrupting the Scriptures by their traditions; but only such as were not contrary to the law of Moses. We are taught to obey bad no less than good ministers, in those things that are not expressly contrary to the law of God. Hence appears how unfounded and unreasonable is the excuse so often adduced by persons in justification of their misdeeds, viz. that they saw their pastors do the same. Such must attend to the rule here given by Jesus Christ. What they say, do: but according to their works, do ye not. (Denis the Carthusian) --- The words, all whatsoever, shew that nothing must be excepted, but what the supreme law orders to be excepted. (Estius)

Heavy and insupportable burdens. Some understand in general the ceremonies of the law of Moses; but Christ seems rather here to mean the vain customs, tradition, and additions, introduced by the Jewish doctors, and by their Scribes and Pharisees. (Witham) --- They thus greatly increase the burden of others, by multiplying their obligations; whilst they will not offer themselves the least violence in observing them, or alleviating the burden, by taking any share upon their own shoulders.

11] Col. 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." Paul warns about the traditions of men. How do you determine the difference between good tradition and bad tradition? Remember, if you say the Church tells you then you are assuming a tradition to validate tradition and that is a fallacious argument.

Christ Himself has already defined bad traditions - those that contradict or circumvent the Laws of God. Apostolic Tradition, by the fact that it was founded by Christ as the means of handing on the Deposit of Faith, is per se a good tradition. From that, it doesn't become too difficult to use common sense to determine the difference.

Notes:

[1] - 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6; The imposition of hands to pass on authority comes from the Patriarchs of old, who imposed their hands upon their sons to pass on to them their authority and the blessing of God. In the Church, this imposition of hands takes on the new meaning of passing the Apostolic Authority from one man to another, as a father to his son. Priests and bishops have their authority passed to them by the imposition of hands by other bishops (who have the fullness of the priesthood).
-----------------------------------
[2] - 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:15-16.
-----------------------------------
[3] - The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament says about this verse: Timothy is the second link in a chain of succession that stretches from the apostles of the first century to the bishops of the present day. Having received Paul's authority and mission, he is charged with passing on both the priestly ministry and the apostolic faith to the next generation. Timothy must transmit these traditions in the same way he received them from Paul: through public instruction, the sacramental imposition of hands, and the witness of his life (1:6, 13-14; 3:10; 1 Tim 5:22; 6:20).
-------------------------------------
[4] Inter Insigniores, No 4: Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value. However, the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Ti 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate. [Emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------
[5] - The Ignatius Commentary says about this verse: The teaching that Paul handed over to his readers, whether in writing or by oral instruction. This was the standard against which doctrinal claim (2:5) and moral behaviour (3:6) were to be measured and judged. Even Paul's personal example was a form of apostolic catechesis (3:7-9; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Tim 1:13) (CCC 75-76, 82). - The apostles did not hand down everything in writing; many unwritten things were handed down as well, and both written and unwritten are worthy of belief. So let us also regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Thessalonians 4).

St. John Chrysostom's actual quote on 2 Thess. 2:15: Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the Tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a Tradition, seek no farther.

Comments

Apologetics #3: Protestant claims the Church invents new doctrines

19/2/2021

Comments

Claim: The Roman Catholic Church says it never changes; yet it invents new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible / Objections to the Magisterium & Sacred Tradition

Introduction

The objections put forward here are common amongst Protestants. It stems from their erroneous beliefs regarding Scripture and its place in the Christian life. These erroneous beliefs are together called Sola Scriptura, or Scripture alone. Sola Scriptura was divined by Martin Luther, using his private interpretation. Before Luther, no Christian ever believed in Sola Scriptura, but rather understood Scripture to be a part of the overall source from which we derive our Catholic teaching, called the Deposit of Faith.

Thus, the teachings which comprise Sola Scriptura say that Scripture is:

(1) the sole source of Christian doctrine,

(2) the sole norm of doctrine,

(3) the supreme, infallible and sole authority in the Church,

(4) that every single statement, doctrine, command, of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance, without the use of reason,

(5) sufficient, that is, that Scripture has no deficiencies to be supplied by oral tradition, pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, Bishops, theologians or Councils,

(6) Perspicuous, that is, that the Scriptures sets forth all the doctrines on Christian faith and life in most clear terms that both the unlearned and learned can understand, and that Scripture needs not wait for any Pontiff, theologian or Council to make clear its teachings,

(7) its own authentic and infallible interpreter, that is, no human authority, or even reason, is needed to divine its true sense.

(8) That is it is the privilege and duty of all Christians to read and study the Scriptures,

(9) That every man can use his private interpretation to come to the knowledge of saving truth.

Every one of the nine sub-teachings of Sola Scriptura printed above are erroneous and dangerous. Numbers (4) and (7) specifically deny the need for reason when understanding or interpreting Scripture. Yet, the Catholic Church cautions us that we must use reason, firstly because we are given reason by God to understand, and secondly because Scripture is a product of both Divine and human reason. In addition, without reason to guide us, we end up with a mess of interpretations, as the Protestants have. Couple that with numbers (6), (8) and (9) which, joined together, say that even the unlearned man has the duty to study Scripture and privately interpret it, and you have a disastrous cocktail which can only lead to one thing: schism. And after that, when men become disillusioned with the manifold schisms and confusion as to which is true, indifferentism and then finally atheism.

Now, it must be understood that differing Protestant sects have slightly different views as to Sola Scriptura. For example, one may say the use of Councils, traditions, Church Fathers etc., are okay, as long as they are subject to the Scriptures (and one's interpretation of them), whilst others reject anything other than Scripture.

Whilst pondering on how to work out this Apologetics article, I stumbled across an article entitled Questions for Catholics on Sacred Tradition, by CARM, a Calvinist ministry. In its introduction, the author, the anti-Catholic Matt Slick, boasts how after posing these questions, "I do not believe that any Roman Catholic will answer them all." I wish to use these questions as a tool of providing a general answer to objections regarding Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, etc. I shall use his format, albeit slightly adapted.

As there are 65 questions posed, this will mean that this article may be of some length, yet it may not be necessary to answer each question individually, as some original answers may also answer later questions. I shall break the article according to section, and each section shall be a fresh page. I shall link to each section as more are published.

Section I: Sacred Tradition

1] What exactly is Sacred Tradition?

Well, we have to ask what tradition is. The word tradition comes from the Latin traditio, meaning to hand on. Thus anything that is handed on, like the Bible or the Faith, is a tradition. Unfortunately for Protestants, even their particular creeds are traditional, because they are handed down from one generation to the next, whether in written form or orally. So, whether they like it or not, Protestants actually observe the very thing they oppose. In fact, the Bible itself is a product of tradition, since, for example, Moses records events that took place centuries before his birth. These events were orally handed down, protected by the Holy Spirit, until He moved Moses to finally record these oral traditions as written traditions.

Over the course of many centuries, God slowly revealed Himself to man in stages. [1] He began with Creation itself, then by the creation of our First Parents, Adam and Eve. Since then, God has revealed Himself over the centuries of Sacred History, and His Revelation is that He is a loving Father Who wishes us to be with Him in beatitude. The completion of Divine Revelation came in the Person of the Divine Word, Jesus Christ.[2] After the death of St. John the Apostle, all public Revelation ceased, so that everything which God wished to reveal about Himself is now revealed, though it is not yet fully expounded, or made explicit. [3]

This complete Divine Revelation was given by Christ to the Church as the Deposit of Faith [4]. A deposit is something entrusted to someone else, such as money entrusted by a person to a bank, for example. In a similar way, the Lord entrusted His Revelation to the Apostles, gave them authority and commissioned them to hand on (traditio) His Gospel to all men [5]. By this, Sacred (or Apostolic) Tradition originates with Christ Himself, since He commanded the Apostles to hand on the Deposit to other men.

The Holy Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, fulfilled this commission in two ways:

- orally, by which the Apostles "by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit".

- in writing, "by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing". [6]

Thus, the preaching of the Apostles was both oral and written. This is what St. Paul meant when he instructed the Thessalonian Church to "hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle".[7] Of course, some of the written parts of Apostolic Tradition became the New Testament, that is, the received, inspired, Scriptures. The Apostles were preaching before they wrote anything down, meaning that the Catholic Church is older than the New Testament.

Those teachings of the Gospel never committed to writing under Divine Inspiration (in the form of Scripture), have been handed down within the Church from age to age in various ways, always protected by the Holy Spirit. Many are found in:

(a) the works of the Fathers of the Church, who lived before A.D. 750 and whose orthodoxy is specially recognised and celebrated by the Church: Pope St. Gregory the Great, the last of the Latin Fathers, died in A.D. 604; St. John Damascene, the last of the Greek Fathers, died in A.D. 749;

(b) The Acts of the Martyrs, which record in several instances the express doctrines for which the martyrs suffered;

(c) The Professions of Faith (such as the Creeds), and the teaching of both the Popes, in their capacity as Supreme Teacher, and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church;

(d) The practises and customs of the Universal Church, expressly, and in the first place, the Sacred Liturgy.

(e) And even through Christian art, which depict what we believed and how we worshipped over the centuries. [8]

However, this was not enough. The question arises: by what authority does the Apostolic Tradition, that is, all that the Apostles taught, come down to us? Well, the Lord already sorted that part out! The Apostles were to appoint successors, who they would teach and to whom they would pass the mantle of authority. These successors were the bishops.[9] For example, St. Paul appointed St. Timothy as bishop of Ephesus, and St. Titus as archbishop of Crete. They in turn appointed successors, and on and on it goes. Every Catholic bishop today has Apostolic Succession, which they receive at their consecration as bishops.[10]

Not only that, but "Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in the care of the Roman Pontiff himself",[11] that is, the Roman Pontiff has the supreme duty above all to protect Revelation, and properly expound it, and at times, when prompted by the Holy Spirit, to define a doctrine ex cathedra. [12] In communion with him are the College of Bishops, who may as a College under the authority of the Pope, also define a doctrine ex cathedra. This is usually done in an Ecumenical Council. However, neither the Pope nor the bishops can define a new Revelation, nor accept any supposed new public Revelation. [13; 14]

In brief:

1) What is tradition?

It is the handing on of teachings.

2) What is being handed on?

Divine Revelation.

3) How is it handed on?

Through the preaching of the Apostles, the Sacred Scriptures, and various methods in the Church.

4) What is this tradition called?

Apostolic Tradition.

5) Who founded Apostolic Tradition?

Christ, when He commanded the Apostles to hand on the Faith. However, it is the Apostles who executed this Tradition when they went forth to preach, hence this is why it is named after them. One may also call it Divine Tradition, since this is the means by which Christ Himself Willed that His Doctrines be handed on.

6) Who protects and teaches this tradition?

The Apostles and their Successors, the Bishops, through Apostolic Succession. In the first place, the Supreme Guardian and Teacher is the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of St. Peter.

7) Can the bishops or the Pope proclaim a new Revelation?

No. Neither the Pope nor the College of Bishops can proclaim a new Revelation, but only expound and define more clearly what Christ has already taught.

8) Who guides the Pope and the Bishops?

The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Who was promised to the Church by Christ Himself.

9) Are there other traditions in the Church besides Apostolic Tradition?

Yes. The Church has other traditions, which, although not of Apostolic origin, are still binding upon the faithful. The rule is usually that if a tradition is practised for more than one hundred years, it is considered binding. Some of these traditions (also known as customs) include such things as fasting for forty days in Lent, how long to fast before receiving the Holy Eucharist, etc. Although these traditions are human in origin, their inspiration is given to the Holy Spirit, Who guides the Church in all Her activities. The Church has the authority to bind and loose the faithful according to the laws and customs which She has deemed, by the help of the Holy Spirit, to be most beneficial to the salvation of Catholics. Since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ - and thus is Christ Himself on earth - we receive Her laws as if it where Christ Himself directly binding us. The Church cannot bind Catholics to a law that is detrimental to their salvation, since She is always guided by the Holy Spirit.

2] How is Sacred Tradition declared to be such in the Church?

In short, it is declared by Christ Who commanded the Apostles to hand on (traditio) Revelation to other men. However, He has given the Church the means to determine whether a teaching or practise is of Apostolic origin or not.

3] What is the means of the Church determining what is true Sacred Tradition?

See (a) - (e) above.

4] Did the Apostles intend for there to be Sacred Tradition or is Sacred Tradition something invented by the Church?

Since Tradition was the means by which Christ Himself willed for the Deposit to be handed on, it stands to reason that the Apostles did not have to intend for there to be such. And, likely, since it is of Divine Origin, Tradition is not an invention of the Church.

Notes:

[1] - Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 54-64.
----------------------------------
[2] - Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 65-67; Dei Verbum, para. 2: By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation.
-----------------------------------
[3] - Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 66: Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
-----------------------------------
[4] - Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 84; Dei Verbum, para 10;

1 Tim 6:20: O Timothee, depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates, et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae...[Latin Vulgate; emphasis mine];

2 Tim 1: 12-14: Ob quam causam etiam haec patior, sed non confundor. Scio enim cui credidi, et certus sum quia potens est depositum meum servare in illum diem. Formam habe sanorum verborum, quae a me audisti in fide, et in dilectione in Christo Jesu. Bonum depositum custodi per Spiritum Sanctum, qui habitat in nobis. [Latin Vulgate; emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------
[5] - Dei Verbum, para 7: Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see 2 Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts.
--------------------------------------
[6] - Dei Verbum, para 7: This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.

- John 14:16-17; 14:26; 16:12-15: In these verses Christ promises the Spirit of truth to the Apostles to guide them into all truth. He even tells them that He has many more things to say to them, but cannot until later. Thus, the Spirit will come and reveal to them these teachings. This is a reference to the Church expounding Revelation. Christ knows that we cannot receive His Gospel all at once, so He kindly reveals it slowly, so that we may properly understand and believe. Some teachings, like the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation and the True Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist are mysteries, that is, they cannot be comprehended by human reason, and thus will take longer to expound due to their mystical nature. For example, the Dogma of the Holy Trinity took some 300 years to define, and even then it was still being defined in detail! So profound and mystical is the Lord's heavenly Word, that even after two millennia expounding it, Holy Mother Church still does not fully comprehend, and most likely has not made even a dent in Divine Revelation. The Church could spend eternity just meditating on one teaching, so profound it is!
---------------------------------------
[7] - 2 Thessalonians 2:14.
----------------------------------------
[8] - Sacred Scripture Depends on Sacred Tradition, Catholic Answers, para 5.

- John 21:25: In this verse, St. John reminds us that not everything Jesus did was written down, because such a record would be so voluminous, not even the whole face of the earth could store it. Thus, other means of transmitting the Gospel were used, such as the Sacred Liturgy, Christian iconography and the like. In addition, it must be remembered that most Christians for c. 1900 years were illiterate. Thus, the use of art and Liturgy were the primary instruments through which the Church taught the people. A Catholic knew his faith through the Mass and the Liturgy and the icons and statues in his Church, not through the written word. This is why the Sacred Liturgy recreates many Biblical events, so that the illiterate Christian could re-play the very events recorded in Scripture. So, for example, when Christ enters Jerusalem on Palm Sunday; it becomes a physical celebration in which Catholics would carry blessed palms from one Church to another, singing Latin chants, and recreating the Entry into Jerusalem. Thus, even though they could not read the Scriptural account, they could participate in it by their actions and chants. Even today, most Catholics still get their understanding of the Gospel from the Liturgy. Thus, contrary to Protestant assertion, Christ could not have commanded His disciples to read the Scriptures, since such a command would have been an unreasonable burden upon most Christians, who could neither afford monies nor time to literacy. At least for Catholics, Christ is not so heartless as to command that which He knew would be unattainable for c. 1900 years!
------------------------------------------
[9] - Dei Verbum, para. 7: But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place."

- Dei Verbum, para. 8: And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time.
-----------------------------------------
[10] - Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 1555 & 1556.
-----------------------------------------
[11] - Lumen Gentium, para. 25.
------------------------------------------
[12] - Lumen Gentium, para. 25: And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.
--------------------------------------------
[13] - Lumen Gentium, para. 25: The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.
----------------------------------------------
[14] - Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I: For the Holy Spirit was promised to the Successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the Revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles. Indeed, their Apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable Fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox Doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the Divine Promise of our Lord and Saviour to the Prince of His disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Comments

Apologetics #2: Protestant claims that the Church banned the Bible

18/2/2021

Comments

Claim: The Bible was forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia. Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (Read John 5:39; 2nd Timothy 3:15-17).

It is a common objection of many Protestants that the Catholic Church banned laymen from reading the Bible, and/or banned vernacular translations. The above objection, which was sent to me, pushes that same claim. However, it's false.

The Church promoted correct translations of the Scriptures, as is evidenced when one reads the Catholic Encyclopaedia's article on versions of the Bible. Indeed, the printing press was invented by a Catholic German, and the first book he printed was the Bible. When one reads the list of the various vernacular translations, one becomes immediately aware of the proliferation of Bibles. If the Catholic Church had banned people from either reading the Bible, or translating it, then She sure did a very poor job of it! Another important read would be Catholic Answers tract on Scripture, especially its Section VI Attitudes of the Church on reading the Bible in the vernacular, which clears up some of these conspiracy theories about the Church banning Scripture. Thirdly, there are the three Papal Encyclicals on Holy Scripture: Providentissimus Deus, Spiritus Paraclitus and Divino Afflante Spiritu, which openly show the Papal patronage of Scripture and its correct interpretation.

The Protestant claims of ecclesial prohibition of Scripture reading usually comes in the form of the claim repeated above, that the Council of Valencia (Spain) of 1229 banned laymen from reading the Bible, and placed the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books. The claim has many holes in it:

1] There was no such Council of Valencia that convened in 1229. I don't know how Valencia got into the claim.

2] The Council that did convene in 1229 was the French Synod of Toulouse.

3] The Synod was convened to solve the problem of the Albigensians and Cathars, who were neo-Manichaean cults that believed the created world was evil, and thus men should commit suicide in order to free their souls from their bodies. Manichaeism is a form of Gnosticism. The aforementioned cults were rife in France at the time, and were posing a serious threat. One of the ways they spread their heretical teachings was by falsely translating the New Testament, but changed what it said (like the Jehovah Witnesses) in order to make the Scripture fit their perverted beliefs.

4] In order to starve the heretics of their twisted Scriptures, the Synod of Toulouse placed a ban on translations of Bibles, and even prohibited laymen from having Bibles, except to have the Psalter for devotional reasons, and these were to be in Latin. Canon 14 of the Snyod stated: "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

5] The Synod's prohibition only had force within the jurisdiction it covered, that is, in France. Its rulings had no force anywhere else in the Church. This fact seems to have escaped Protestant objectors. Other such Synods did similar things, like in England, when the Synod of Oxford prohibited Bibles from being published unless they were approved by the Church. This, likewise, was to stop the Lollards who were publishing false translations. Only Ecumenical Councils have universal binding force.

6] Lastly, no Ecumenical Council ever prohibited laymen from reading Bibles. Local councils have done such as a means of quashing heresy, but these councils only had force within their jurisdictions, and local councils are never dogmatic, as only an Ecumenical Council can be infallible. I know a lot of Protestants get very confused between Ecumenical and local Councils, and think any Council is universal and infallible, when actually that is not the case at all.

7] The above claim that the Council put the Bible on the Index of Forbidden Books is completely ludicrous when one does a little research and discovers that the Index only began to exist from 1559 onward - 330 years after the Synod of Toulouse made its temporary prohibition of Bibles. So, how could Synod place the Bible on an Index that was 330 years in its future?

As for reading John 5:39, this verse is taken in isolation. Jesus nowhere here commands for us to read the Bible. He rebukes the Pharisees, who believed that salvation would come from the Scriptures, or rather, their false interpretation of it. They read the Scriptures every Sabbath to the people, and read the Prophecies of the Messiah, and when the Messiah came to them, they could not recognise Him. That's why He says: Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting. For you think! He was rebuking their blindness. He was not commanding people to read the Scriptures. I would direct the reader to read the whole of John 5. Bishop Challoner's commentary on John 5:39 says:

"Search the scriptures": Scrutamini. It is not a command for all to read the scriptures; but a reproach to the Pharisees, that reading the scriptures as they did, and thinking to find everlasting life in them, they would not receive Him to Whom all those Scriptures gave testimony, and through Whom alone they could have that true life.

Protestants seem forgetful that mass literacy is a recent phenomenon. So, Jesus apparently, according to the Protestants, commanded 1,900+ years of mostly illiterate men to read the Scriptures. If that sounds absurd, it is.

As for 2nd Timothy 3:15-17, this in no way is a command to read the Scriptures. And to read that into the text is pure twisting and deceit. St. Paul is only stating the inspiration and usefulness of Scripture, nothing more. And, to note, the Scriptures he is referring to is the Old Testament alone, not the New. I shall here include the commentary from the Haydock Commentary:

All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, or admonish, to instruct others in justice, and in the ways of virtue, that thus he who is a man of God, a minister of the Gospel, may be perfect and instructed unto every good work.

But when our adversaries of the pretended Reformation, undertake from these four verses to shew, first, that every ignorant man or woman is hereby warranted to read and put what construction his or her private spirit, or private judgment, suggests upon all places of the holy Scriptures; and secondly, that the Scriptures alone contain all truths which a Christian is bound to believe; or at least, that the Scriptures teach him all things necessary to salvation, without regard to the interpretation and authority of the Catholic Church: I may at least say (without examining at present any other pretended grounds of these assertions) that these consequences are very remote from the text and sense of St. Paul in this place.

As to the first, does this follow; the Scriptures must be read by Timothy, a Priest, a Bishop, a man of God, a minister of the Gospel, whose office it is to instruct and convert others, therefore they are proper to be read and expounded by every ignorant man or woman? Does not St. Paul say elsewhere, (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) that many adulterate and corrupt the word of God? does not St. Peter tell us also, (2 Peter iii. 16.) that in St. Paul's epistles are some things....which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own perdition? See the preface to the Gospel of St. John, where reasons are brought for which it was requisite that the Church should put some restraint to the abuse which the ignorant made of reading the Scriptures in vulgar tongues.

As to the second consequence, does it follow: every Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for St. Timothy, for a Priest, a Bishop, a man of God, a minister and preacher of the Gospel, to teach and instruct, and conduce to bring both him and others to salvation; therefore they contain all things that a Christian need to believe? &c. Is not every Christian bound to believe that the Books in the Canon of the New and Old Testament are of Divine Authority, as in particular these two epistles of St. Paul to Timothy? Where does the Scripture assure us of this? But of this elsewhere. (Witham)

Every part of divine Scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, (that is, with the Old Testament alone) nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the Traditions of the Apostles and the interpretation of the Church, to which the Apostles delivered both the Book and the true meaning of it. (Challoner)

Comments

Apologetics #1: Protestant claims that Catholic don't read the Bible; Catholic doctrine man-made

15/2/2021

Comments

Claim: Catholics don't want to read the bible. They wanna hear made up man made Catholic doctrine and feel happy about their Babylonian goddes [sic] Queen of Heaven. 1500 yrs [sic] ago Catholics would kill us for heresy!

1] Catholics don't want to read the Bible.

Such a statement is ironic considering that Catholics were the first to have the Bible in its complete form, and then invented the Printing Press in order to print it, translated it into diverse languages, and have education so people could read it. It is also ironic that the very people who claim to read the Bible (Protestants) are also the ones who greatly twist it and mistranslate and misinterpret it.

Let us remember that the Bible is a volume of Sacred History, recounting the deeds of God and His People, not a compendium of all Doctrine on all matters of life, as Protestants absurdly seem to think. Scripture cannot make a judgment on something centuries in its future. Thus, how would a Protestant using the Bible alone be able to make a judgment regarding something like stem-cell research? The answer is, they wouldn't.

2] They wanna hear made up man made Catholic doctrine and feel happy about their Babylonian goddes [sic] Queen of Heaven.

The reason why Protestants make such statements regarding Catholic Doctrine is because of their erroneous views on the source of that Doctrine. When Luther began butchering the Faith, removing those points of Doctrine he didn't personally agree with, he had to find new doctrines with which to fill the void. These he plucked from the Bible via his own fallible, private [mis]interpretation of Scripture, rejecting 1500 years of correct teaching from various sources, including the venerable Fathers of the Church. Thus, to a Protestant, if a doctrine cannot be easily sought in Scripture, it must therefore be man-made and thus false. This is their criteria for determining true doctrine from false doctrine.

Yet Protestantism's five big Solae, such as Sola Fide (Faith alone) and Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), are to be found no where in Scripture, and are opposed by the express teaching of the same Holy Writ. Therefore, using the Protestants' own criteria, they must be man-made and therefore false. But Protestants will never agree to that, even though this ruling is based on their own criteria. By this very fact, they are shown to be harbouring false, man-made doctrines which are contrary to Christian teaching. Luther himself conceded nothing when arguing his false doctrine, famously declaring that he was more faithful than even St. Augustine! Only pride and lofty arrogance can be the mistresses that fan a man's rebellious passions.

Thus when Luther says that Romans 3:28 proves "faith alone", we ask where such words are printed in this verse, because it is evident that no such phrase can be read. But to compound it, we read in Romans 2:6 that God judges according to our works, and in Romans 2:7 that eternal life is given to those who are patient in good works. Then, as if to answer this very point, James 2:24 expressly states that man is justified by his good works, and not by faith alone. This provides such a thorn to the pretended Reformers, as to make them need the aid of sophistry in order to rework this verse.

In answer to the second part of the sentence, the Protestants have it in mind that everything contrary to their worldview must be pagan. Therefore, since the pagans used sacral water, the Church must be pagan for using the same element, even though God commanded the use of holy water in the Old Testament [Numbers 5:17]. Thus, because an ancient pagan goddess was referred to as queen of heaven, a title given by all pagans to their chief goddess, this must mean that Catholics are worshipping a false goddess when they call Mary "Queen of Heaven". Yet, by this same argument, one could accuse the Protestants of paganism, since in their hymns they call Our Lord "King of Heaven" (such as in the hymn - Praise my soul the King of Heaven). Yet, did not the Romans call Jupiter the king of heaven? Yea, did not also the Greeks name Zeus such? Therefore, we must charge the Protestants with adoring a false god by the very fact they use this title!

"Ah", say they, "but God is the true King of Heaven". Agreed; and Mary is the true Queen of Heaven, and every pagan idol named as such is either a foreshadow of the real Queen, or a corruption of that image. For if Lucifer corrupted God's Image on earth by the making of idols, then surely he would most certainly corrupt the image of the One who would crush him under foot - the Blessed Virgin Mary.

3] 1500 yrs [sic] ago Catholics would kill us for heresy!

I believe this is a typing error, as Protestantism did not exist 1500 years ago, as even Protestants themselves will agree.

Why should this person be so shocked? Would he be as equally surprised to learn that Protestants killed Catholics, and indeed killed each other. They would even kill their own kind, as Thomas Cranmer, Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, showed when he was altogether willing to kill those he favoured in order to appease the King, Henry VIII, and in order to retain his power.

In fact, in England the barbarism with which the pretended Reformers laid prey to Catholics and drawn and quartered them is well documented. If they only meant to reform the Church, then why did they leave, rebel and then murder innocent people? Were they not doing the same as they condemned the Catholic Church for doing? What is different between the Inquisitions and the Reformation? Only that the Reformers were most barbaric in their treatment of not only Catholics but of their own.

Whilst in the Holy Roman Empire Protestants were tolerated so long as they did not disturb the civil order, and were even allowed into the Imperial Army, in Protestant countries Catholics were afforded no such comfort. They were hounded out of house and home, hung, cut open, and their entrails became a sport for blood-thirsty savages. Being branded a Papist was as good as being a criminal.

Comments

This video explains the Filioque, and why the Eastern Orthodox are wrong in rejecting the Filioque

29/12/2020

Comments

How Protestants misuse the Bible

15/12/2020

Comments

Or, Proof Protestants don't know what the Hell they are talking about.

Or, Proof Protestantism is a man-made religion.

Comments

How did Moses write the Pentateuch? Well, here's a possible way

29/11/2020

Comments

I have been watching the Patterns of Evidence series that works to prove the Biblical narrative of Exodus to be true. I have watched the Moses Controversy which of which you can watch Part 1 HERE and Part 2 HERE.

Happy viewing.

Comments

Biblical and Egyptian Chronologies match up well when you dismiss what the supposed "experts" want you to believe

28/11/2020

Comments

Some interesting videos on the length of the Israelites in Egypt & when the Flood actually happened

24/11/2020

Comments

Sola Scriptura: A dialogue

26/8/2020

Comments

In the following dialogue, C stands for Catholic and P stands for Protestant.

C: You believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God, right?
P: Yes.
C: Are you infallible?
P: No.
C: Is the church you belong to infallible?
P: No.
C: Is your minister infallible?
P: No.
C: Is anyone infallible?
P: Outside of Jesus Christ, no.
C: So, let me get this right. You believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, but that no one is infallible?
P: Yes, that's right.
C: So, you believe that God gave us an infallible book but left no infallible person or institution that could infallibly interpret that book, so that we would be certain of what exactly God is saying to us?
P: Silence.
C: This is the logical conclusion of your Sola Scriptura belief, that God is an idiot for leaving us an infallible book but no infallible interpreter of that book. Thus, according to that doctrine, no man could ever be certain that his interpretation of Scripture is the right one, or that his interpretation came by the Holy Spirit. Naturally, we see the logical and physical consequence of Sola Scriptura: countless denominations all equally claiming to be based on the same Bible. Are there hundreds of different ways of interpreting Scripture? If there is, then the Holy Spirit would be stupid, and that is a opinion that is offensive to Divine and Catholic Faith. On the contrary, there is indeed an infallible interpreter established by Jesus Christ to give us the true interpretation of Scripture and which can, with absolute certainty, inform us not only the mind of the human authors of Scripture, but the very Mind of God Himself of the same, and that infallible interpreter is none other than the Catholic Church. Thus, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, whilst being anti-Scriptural, is also illogical, because it would mean that the Bible, given to men for their instruction, is unknowable and forever out of the reach of the human mind. Hence, God is made into an idiot for having left us with so precious a gift, and no one to open it for us.

Comments

Apologetics #6: Protestant claims that Peter wasn't appointed to the headship of the Apostolic College

(1) Jesus & Peter:
Who is Head of the Church?

(2) Was St. Peter in Rome?

Apologetics #5: Protestant claims the Church invents new doctrine, Part 3

Apologetics #4: Protestant claims the Church invents new doctrines, Part 2

Apologetics #3: Protestant claims the Church invents new doctrines

Apologetics #2: Protestant claims that the Church banned the Bible

Apologetics #1: Protestant claims that Catholic don't read the Bible; Catholic doctrine man-made

This video explains the Filioque, and why the Eastern Orthodox are wrong in rejecting the Filioque

How Protestants misuse the Bible

How did Moses write the Pentateuch? Well, here's a possible way

Biblical and Egyptian Chronologies match up well when you dismiss what the supposed "experts" want you to believe

Some interesting videos on the length of the Israelites in Egypt & when the Flood actually happened

Sola Scriptura: A dialogue

Catholic teaching on Mary, Part 1: The Two Eves

You think that the burning of Sodom & Gomorrah didn't exist? Take a look at this!

What happened at Caesarea Philippi?

Protestant Objection #6: The Papists chained down the Bible to stop people reading it

A List of Protestant Objections

Protestant Objection #5: Versions of the Bible

The Three C's & the Early Church

Protestant Objection #4: On St. Peter's primacy and presence in Rome

Protestant Objections #3: The Council of Valencia & Jesus' command to read the Scriptures

Protestant Objections #2: On the Eucharist

Protestant Objections #1: Catholics & the Bible; Catholic doctrine; Queen of Heaven; killing for heresy

Archives

(1) Jesus & Peter:​Who is Head of the Church?

(2) Was St. Peter in Rome?

Archives

(1) Jesus & Peter:
Who is Head of the Church?