And so we come to the second part of my analysis of two Anti-Catholic Protestants and their personal view of Christian history. This last part will be somewhat lengthier since I need to elaborate on various topics such as Marianology and Papal authority. So, as stated in Part 1, go grab something to eat and drink, you're going to be here a while.
@ 16:18 – “The idea that Saints have stored merit, that you can pray to a Saint and he’ll give you some grace out of his storage…is a medieval Roman Catholic concept…” This must be Mr. Morrison’s attempt to demonstrate that the Early Church Fathers didn’t believe in indulgences. In the year 200 A.D. ecclesiastical writer Tertullian, at the time a priest, stated the following in his work The Prescription Against Heretics:
“[The devil's] poisons are foreseen by God; and although the gate of repentance has already been closed and barred by Baptism, still, He permits it to stand open a little. In the vestibule He has stationed a second repentance, which He makes available to those who knock - but only once, because further were in vain”
In light of Tertullian’s comments, let’s briefly take a look at what an indulgence is. To begin with, when we sin, we incur 2 things: 1) the guilt of sin and 2) the punishment of sin. The former can be absolved and cleared through reconciliation/confession, the latter however is where most Protestants stumble. You see, for the average Protestant the belief is quite simple, if you’re truly repentant, then any sin can and will be forgiven my Jesus – and indeed this is true – but, what they fail to realize is that there is a punishment that is still incurred because of the sin; a temporal punishment made by God in His Divine Justice and Mercy so that we may truly overcome the sin itself. What an indulgence does is that it does away with any residual effects of the temporal punishment and restores our full grace with God. The biggest failure that Protestants miss here is that punishment due to sin, IS WHOLLY BIBLICAL: God punished Moses for disobeying Him and, as his punishment, he was barred from entering the Promised Land. David, after murdering and committing adultery, is forgiven by God but, as his punishment, he lost his firstborn son. Scripture says that death entered the world through Original Sin, if we are totally forgiven and there is no punishment for our sins, then – hypothetically speaking - why aren’t we able to ask for forgiveness each and every time we sin and live forever since death would no longer be a consequence of sin?
Indulgences simply reduce or undo the severity of punishment that has been imposed on us due to our sins here on earth. The Church, being the True Body of Christ, has at its disposal the authority to forgive sin – NO OTHER CHURCH HAS THAT AUTHORITY, perhaps this is why a lot of Protestants have such a limited view of what sin really is and what sin really does incur upon us. The Catholic Church also has available to her, the power to tap into the endless and grace filled merits of not only and primarily Christ but, all of the Saints in heaven who are in communion with Christ and His Church; the Church is the proverbial Bride of Christ and, as such, she shares an intimate bond with the bridegroom, she can never deny Him and He will never deny her. She is, by her authority, able to dispense these merits from our communion with Christ and the Saints and apply them to us, her children, to further sanctify us. Remember, an indulgence doesn’t justify, it sanctifies.
The Catholic Church has this authority invested in it, to bind and loose, thus Tertullian’s words that there is a “second repentance” could be understood to come from within the Treasury of the Church, and the Church is thus able to dispense these merits to the faithful to expunge the guilt due to sin and bring them closer to God.
Now, what did the Early Church Fathers teach about the Church having this ability? Well, the Early Church Fathers, as I have already demonstrated: 1) venerated the Saints in heaven and asked for their intercession and 2) they venerated their relics. Why would they do these things if they didn’t believe that they, the Saints and their relics, had the power to bestow the grace of God upon them? Think about it, if these Early Christians didn’t consider the bones of the martyrs to be precious or, at the very least, proof positive that the martyr’s bones were sanctified though their passion, then why did so many of the Early Church Fathers write about them? Why, I’ll tell you why; even though it is never explicitly stated, the Early Christians knew that they were in Communion with the Saints through our one mediator Christ and, as such, they knew that the Church – the visible presence of Christ here on earth – had the power and authority to call upon these precious merits of our eternal brothers and sisters and grant us the sanctifying grace of God. The Early Church Fathers knew that only one Church could do that, the empirical data rationally leads us there.
The problem here is that, like most “bible-alone” Protestants, Mr. Morrison and Mr. Wessels want literal written words in order to believe it. To them I ask where, pray tell, is the word “Trinity” in the bible? Where is the word “incarnation” in the bible? Where in the bible do we see that Jesus has two wills, one Divine and one humanly, that is, the hypostatic union? How do you know the name of the author of the Gospel of Mark since the bible makes no mention of it? How do you know the name of the author of the Gospel of Matthew since the bible makes no mention of it? How do you know that the Lord is to be worshipped on Sunday, don’t see that in the bible, do you? You see, in order to answer these questions, we have to go to the extra-biblical sources found only in the Early Church and her writers who depended and drew upon Apostolic Tradition in order to form a clearer picture of what Christianity is and – more importantly – what it will always be.
@ 16:31 – “Praying through images of Saints…the Early Church was very much against…worshipping images.” And to that every Catholic should say AMEN! Why? Because we – as Catholics - don’t worship images either. Mr. Morrison must’ve forgotten about the Roman catacombs to which the very first Christians were driven to in order to worship Christ in the form of the Eucharist. The walls of the Roman catacombs provide a dazzling and moving display of sacred art: these fresco-icons depict Christ and the truths of our Faith from Scripture and Tradition; not surprisingly, they also show Mary holding the Christ-child, certain early martyrs, and various Sacraments (such as the Eucharist, Baptism, etc.). Some of these date from the end of the first century, when certain Apostles and disciples were still living. It is said that it would be possible for a non-Christian to understand many deep things about Christianity simply by walking through these wonderful underground passageways.
So, you see, images and veneration served a purpose: it connected Christians to one another primarily through the same belief system of the only Christian Church of the time, that is, the Catholic Church. Hmmmmm, veneration of sacred images by the Early Christians, does your church allow for this Mr. Morrison? Why not? Don’t you want to be just like those first Christians who were only a generation or two removed from Jesus?
Roman historian Eusebius writing towards the end of the 3rd century in his monumental work, Church History, records the following in Book 7 Chapter 18:
“…For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases.
They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city.
Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers.”
As St. John of Damascus said:
"If a pagan asks you to show him your faith, take him into church and place him before the icons.”
@ 17:06 – “Praying to Saints in Heaven, there is no thing [sic] about that.” Well, according to St. Clement of Alexandria, writing in 208 A.D. in his Stromata Book 7, chapter 12:
“So is he [the good Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him.”
Ecclesiastical writer, Origen, in 233 A.D. wrote in his On Prayer , in chapter 11 the following:
“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels... as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage, in his 56th Epistle’s 5th statement, written in 253 A.D, says:
“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if any one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy.”
Just how are we supposed to “pray for one another” on both sides of death, Mr. Morrison? St. Cyprian explicitly states for us to pray for those on the other side, do you do that at your church Mr. Morrison? Because I do and so did the very first Christians and the Church they belonged to.
@17:31 – Mr. Morrison stipulates that the Catholic Church killed people for owning bibles. Academically and historically false. During the medieval ages, the Church actually chained up bibles so that no one could steal them since it would take years for monks to hand copy Scripture, thus compiling a workable bible was a very laborious task. A council was held in Toulouse, France in 1229 deal with the Albigensian heresy which held, among other things, that there are two gods. In order to promote their heresy, the heretics published a deliberately inaccurate translation of the Bible. To protect the Catholic Christians, the council bishops forbade the reading of that translation. They never prohibited anyone from reading the Bible in its original language or an accurate translation though. Additionally, after Martin Luther decided he didn’t agree with 7 books that had been part of Sacred Scripture and invented his own personalized version of the Bible, the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s declared that it was officially prohibited for any Catholic to read any of the heretical Latin versions that were made by the Protestant reformers. Indeed, in the Fourth Session of the Council, the Church not only laid out all of the 73 books which had been part of Scripture for over 1100 years (at that time) but, unequivocally stated:
“If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”
Harsh words but, definitely needed words, considering that the reformers where perverting the established Word of God to break apart the Body of Christ.
Anyone who states that the Catholic Church killed people for owning the bible, needs to back it up and show proof of this. Unfortunately, the vast majority of “proofs” most Protestants use to make this false claim come from anti-Catholic post-reformation Protestant propaganda. Anyone who makes this statement or believes it should first do themselves an intellectual favor: find out WHO said it, WHY they said it and, most importantly, find out WHAT NEWLY INVENTED CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION they believed in. You might just be surprised at how many Catholic myths can get debunked this way and how biased and untruthful the people who originally said it really were.
@ 17:41 – “Having read every page that I could of the Early Church writers, there is not a single writer that I have seen that taught any of these things.” I haven’t read every page of the Early Church writers and yet, I’ve found certain errors in Mr. Morrison’s conclusions. It is also interesting how Mr. Morrison didn’t mention the Early Church Father’s belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or, their belief in the Papacy
– that is – in one true leader of Christ’s one true Church. Does your church believe in these things in the same manner that that the Early Christians did? Why not?
@ 19:25 – “There is nothing in the Early Church writings, prior to Nicaea, that said Mary never sinned or Mary did not have Original Sin.” Wow. At this point it is entirely necessary to state that these two anti-Catholic heretics have officially gone off the deep end. How do I know? Because this statement is absolutely and 100% inaccurate and wholly misleading! I would think, that fellow brothers-in-Christ would have some form of charity in evangelizing their point of view but, to state a lie as fact removes any shred of charity and openness within Christ. To use a lie in order to blunt the truth is not of God but of the devil. St. Athanasius wrote On the Incarnation in the early 300’s and, in Chapter 2 paragraph 8, he is talking about how Jesus took on the human form via the incarnation. He says:
“…He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin…”
If no other Early Church Father is to be quoted, the true take-away from this quote is that St. Athanasius – at the age of 27 – WAS AT THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA. If this Church Father had no issue in stating that Mary was stainless and never received any rebuke from other Church Fathers for making such a statement, then the preponderance of the evidence leads us to conclude that this was an accept teaching by the Early Church. Several other Post-Nicaea Church Fathers also echoed what St. Athanasius said; St. Cyril of Jerusalem writing 22 years after the Council of Nicaea stated in his Catechetical Lectures, lecture 12 paragraph 32, the following:
“Immaculate and undefiled was His birth: for where the Holy Spirit breathes, there all pollution is taken away: undefiled from the Virgin was the incarnate birth of the Only-begotten.”
Once again, even after the council, an Early – and well known – Church Father stated that Mary was undefiled and removed of all pollution! Did St. Cyril get excommunicated for this belief? Was he called before a general synod to account for an alleged blasphemy? Did he live out the rest of his life in exile, shunned from the Church and the community because of what he wrote? Absolutely not, on the contrary, just 4 years after beginning to write his Catechetical Lectures, he was made bishop of Jerusalem! Not exactly the post for an idolatrous blasphemer, eh Mr. Morrison?
Just for fun’s sake, here’s what Martin Luther said about Mary’s sinlessness:
"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).
"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.” (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).
"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.” (Personal Prayer Book, 1522).
"No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.” (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
Do these quotes thus undermine the whole Protestant movement? Shouldn’t Protestants then, therefore adore and venerate Mary just like Martin Luther did (he also believed in The Real Presence!)? Do you honor the Blessed Virgin Mary in this way Mr. Morrison? Why not? It’s obvious that for at least the very first 1550 years of Christianity, it was an accepted truth!
@ 19:34 – “There is nothing what so ever that she was co-redeemer or co-mediator.” St. Irenaeus writing around 180 A.D. in Book 3 of his Against Heresies Chapter 22 Section 1, said (with my emphasis):
“Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yet still a virgin, became by her disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, too, espoused yet a virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.”
St. Iraneus was a student of Polycarp, who in turn was a student of John the Apostle. That's about as early as you can get. The title "Co-Redemptrix" refers to Mary's participation in Jesus' work, in exactly the way an Protestant pastor participates with Jesus when he prays for people and preaches the Gospel (1 Cor. 3:9). As St. Paul tells us, the BODY of Jesus Christ was the instrument of the Redemption (Hebrews 10:10). In this most important sense of giving flesh to the Savior in the Incarnation, Mary cooperated with God in the redemption of the world and is therefore "Co-Redemptrix" of the human race. Without Mary there is no Incarnation and therefore no salvation, and knowing and loving the Blessed Mother brings us ever closer to her Son.
It is thus important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Co-redemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Co-redemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man. Co-redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix do not mean “Co-Savior.”
@ 19:37 – “There is nothing that she suffered for us at Jesus’ crucifixion.” Did Mary suffer for our sins as Mr. Morrison puts it? Pope Benedict XV said in his apostolic letter, Inter Sadolicia, that:
“As the blessed Virgin Mary does not seem to participate in the public life of Jesus Christ, and then, suddenly appears at the stations of his cross, she is not there without divine intention. She suffers with her suffering and dying son, almost as if she would have died herself. For the salvation of mankind, she gave up her rights as the mother of her son and sacrificed him for the reconciliation of divine justice, as far as she was permitted to do. Therefore, one can say, she redeemed with Christ the human race.”
Did she suffer for our sins? No. Did she partake of Christ’s suffering and Passion? Yes and at the most basic and intimate level possible, that of a mother and child and, in that participation, she gives up, not only her only son but, her very motherhood on Calvary. In essence, Mary gave up her whole reason for being – to give birth to the Son of God and to be His Mother – as she witnessed her son get tortured and eventually crucified. Without a doubt she suffered, albeit not to directly save us, nowhere does the Catholic Church believe that Mary’s sufferings save us.
@19:43 – “The Roman Catholic Church has taught that Mary had six other sufferings, including when she couldn’t find Jesus because he was at the temple, they said that was a suffering and things like that.” To begin with, notice what Mr. Morrison has done, he has surmised in error that we believe that Mary suffered for us and now, he adds to that erroneous notion the 7 Sorrows of Mary or, as he calls them, “six other sufferings.” What are the 7 Sorrows of Mary? They are, simply put, biblical examples of the times that Mary, as the Mother of God, longed for her son; in the same exact way that we should long to be with Him as well. The Church uses this as a tool to demonstrate how Mary, completely human, suffered when she couldn’t be with nor nurture her Son. If in fact, Mary magnifies the Lord, then clearly having an insight to what she experienced as a loving mother and a Christian is surely noteworthy. Let’s list the 7 Sorrows,
1) The prophecy of Simeon (Luke 2:24-35). Simeon describes how many will negate Christ. Nice words for the woman who just gave birth to the Son of God to hear, right? Nah, no suffering here.
2) The flight into Egypt (Matthew 2:13-14). Hey Joseph, Herod’s trying to find your child to kill him. Oh happy days!
3) The loss of the Child Jesus in the temple (Luke 2:43-45). Your kid’s missing, no need to suffer or panic over it though. Way to lose the Son of God Mary!
4) Jesus meets his mother on the way to the cross (Luke 23:27). Your son’s about to get killed, too bad there’s nothing you can do about it so don’t suffer too much over it.
5) The Crucifixion (John 19:18,25-27). Seems as if you’re son is in pain and agony but don’t suffer too much over it Mary.
6) Taking down the Body of Jesus from the cross (Mark 15:43-46). Hey, your son’s dead. Let’s have a party!
7) The burial of Jesus (John 19:41-42). Okay, he’s finally in tomb. Can we party now?
Okay so I’ll admit that I was being a bit cynical but I did it to prove a point. Notice how much we miss about the most important parts of Christ’s life as a Son if we don’t include Mary in the picture. Also, notice how much more a motherly figure Mary is in light of her suffering and yet, it is in her suffering that Jesus is manifesting Himself – in the same exact way that He manifests Himself when we as Christians are going though our own difficult times.
Additionally, the Church uses these pieces of Sacred Scripture to also teach the 7 Gifts of the Holy Spirit. ‘Becha didn’t know that Mr. Morrison! Yup, that’s right, if you look at the 7 Sorrows they co-respond to the 7 gifts:
1) The prophecy of Simeon - Fear of the Lord (Mary is explicitly reminded of her sorrowful vocation: "a sword shall pierced thy soul").
2) The flight into Egypt - Piety (Mary fulfills her duties toward Joseph and Jesus in a foreign land).
3) The loss of the child Jesus in the temple - Knowledge (Mary's knowledge of Christ's identity as the Son of God).
4) Jesus meets his mother on the way to the cross - Fortitude (Mary's strength in seeing Christ in His Passion).
5) The Crucifixion - Counsel (Mary is the spiritual guide and counselor for all who seek her crucified Son).
6) Taking down the Body of Jesus from the cross - Understanding (As Mary holds the dead body of her Son, she perceives His coming resurrection).
7) The burial of Jesus - Wisdom (Christ is hidden but Mary's soul continues to see Christ and communicate with Him).
But, did the Early Church Fathers have anything to say about Mary’s pain? Lamentably, very few sources could be found prior to Nicaea to demonstrate a belief in the Sorrows of Mary. However, as early as 350 A.D., just 25 years after Nicaea, we see Marian theology start to sky rocket into the Church by such Early Church Fathers as St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ephraem, St. Epiphanius, and St. Ambrose. By the time of the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. Mary is formally declared the “Mother of God,” shortly thereafter there is an explosion of Marian devotion in both the East and the West. So, if these two anti-Catholics would’ve taken into Christian history into account just 106 years later, then they would’ve easily seen how organic Marian thought blossomed out of the Early Catholic Church.
To state that just because this wasn’t around in the Early Church and there for is an “invention” is really laugh-worthy, let me use Scripture to demonstrate this point. To begin with the first decade of the Early Church was made up ENTIRELY and EXCLUSIVELY of Jewish converts (Acts 10:44-48) as a result of Pentecost, 3000 converts were added that day. Uh, oh! The Church is already looking different than how it looked less than a decade before! And, even more numbers were being added to their fold! (Acts 2:5,41) In order to better serve such a large body of believers, the office of deacon was then “invented” (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim 3:8) WHOA! I don’t remember Scripture saying to “invent” such an office nor do I remember Jesus telling the Apostles that such an office would be okay, do you? I don’t know, this Early Church is sure adding a lot of things not found in Scripture, wouldn’t you say? But, it doesn’t end there: this Early Church, 30 years later, “invents” the office of bishop that we see in Philippians 1:1 and Acts 20:28! Where did they get the nerve to “invent” such a leadership position in the first place?!?! They should've left it as it was, with 12 elders and one of them being the head of all the elders! They're adding too much man-made stuff! And then they let Gentiles join the Church starting with that uncircumcised Roman Cornelius (Acts 10)? Oh, hell naw! This isn’t the Church that first sprang out of the Apostles, no sir! They’re adding and "inventing" too much to Christ’s message! What next, will they dare to move out of the Jewish Temple and into private homes (Romans 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19)? WTF? They’ve already done that!!! Gasp! How dare they move into house churches, who gave them the authority to “invent” such a thing?
You see, if we were to simply take the first 60 years of Christianity, that is 4.473% of Christian history, and attempt to demonstrate that all knowledge and revelation was already contained therein - as Mr. Morrison would like to do with Catholicism in the first 325 years – then we must take into consideration that the Early Church itself was starting to look drastically different. Additionally, since the books of the Bible hadn’t been completed yet, how can we know for certain that using Scripture alone as the final authority for all things Christian wasn’t also an “invention” that happened later on? The point here is this: the Catholic Church is an organic entity, it grows as need arises and in Her growth, She matures as more of the true nature of God is revealed to Her, devotion to Mary is no different.
@ 19:58 – “The bodily Assumption of Mary into heaven, there’s nothing in there either.” How about the Assumption? Did the Early Church Father’s believe in that Catholic doctrine? Well, truth be told, documentation regarding the Assumption is scant in the early Church, it still doesn’t go against what we find in the Bible. Let me elaborate on that point, to begin with let’s understand what the Assumption is because it is already categorically inescapable that Mr. Morrison is endeavoring to place Mary on even par with Jesus and then attempting to pass off that notion as some form of Catholic thought or ideal. This couldn’t be further from the truth; while we do venerate Mary as the Mother of our Lord (Luke 1:43)
we do not ever place her above nor equally with her Son. The true Catholic sees Mary as a reflection of her Son (Luke 1:46), an obedient servant of God, the most perfect wholly human ever created and, I’ll make the argument here, as the very first Christian ever. Let’s now dive into Mr. Morrison’s assumption of Mary’s Assumption into heaven, pun not intended.
The Assumption is not to be confused with Christ’s Ascension. Christ Ascended into Heaven, as Acts chapter 1 states, under His own will. Mary was Assumed into Heaven by the power of God and not through any act of her own will. So, right off the bat, we can see that Jesus takes supremacy – as He rightfully should – over his own mother. Now, let’s address what Scripture says about a bodily Assumption.
As a Catholic, we should have no issue in believing this because Scripture itself talks about various instances where a body was assumed into heaven like that of Enoch, Elijah and, perhaps Moses. Let’s look at these very quickly.
In the case of Enoch, we read in Hebrews 11:5, we read:
“By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and "he was found no more because God had taken him." Before he was taken up, he was attested to have pleased God.”
Seen here is evidence that Enoch was “taken up” by God and he did not “see death” because of his steadfastness to God and His commands. As for Moses, it’s a little more in depth, we read in Jude 1:9 the following:
Yet the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him but said, "May the Lord rebuke you!"
The first 7 verses talks about God’s judgment upon sinners and the 8th verse, in particular, calls out those sinners who “revile glorious beings,” that is, they slander and talk bad about the majesty of the celestial court and angels. Thus, in the 9th verse, we see the author of Jude demonstrating the fact that even Michael the archangel didn’t chastise Lucifer when he demanded to know the location of Moses’ body so, therefore, we as humans are not to revile these messengers of God likewise. The reason why we know that the devil asked the location of Moses’ remains is because the very last statement made about Moses’ grave, found in Deuteronomy 34:6, states:
“…and he was buried in the ravine opposite Beth-peor in the land of Moab, but to this day no one knows the place of his burial.”
Now, the question is asked, why didn’t Satan know where Moses’ body was? Biblical proof demonstates that Satan is the prince of this world; in Revelation12:9
we see that the Devil and his angels deceive the whole world and in 1 John 5:19
we read that the whole world is under Satan’s power. In Matthew 4:1-11,when Jesus was tempted by the devil, Jesus did not question Satan's role as the ruler of this world. The Bible explains that: "The Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and he said to him: 'All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.'”
Think about that. Satan tempted Jesus by offering him "all the kingdoms of the world." Yet, would Satan's offer have been a real temptation if Satan was not actually the ruler of these kingdoms? No, it would not. And note that Jesus did not deny that all these worldly governments were Satan's, which he would have done if Satan did not have power over them. So then Satan, it can be argued, is really is the unseen ruler of the world.
Think about that. Satan tempted Jesus by offering him "all the kingdoms of the world." Yet, would Satan's offer have been a real temptation if Satan was not actually the ruler of these kingdoms? No, it would not. And note that Jesus did not deny that all these worldly governments were Satan's, which he would have done if Satan did not have power over them. So then Satan, it can be argued, is really is the unseen ruler of the world.
Why, did I mention all of this? To prove the simple fact that even the prince of this world (Satan) didn’t know where Moses’ body was in this world. Hence, we can conclude that it may have been assumed into Heaven. Indeed, as far back as the 1st century A.D., it was an ancient Jewish Tradition that Moses had been assumed into heaven (see Talmud Yoma 4a
& the Pesikta Rabbati 20:4), think about how powerful an image of Moses being assumed into heaven must’ve been like especially, given the fact, that the first Christians were all Jews! It is therefore not unlikely that the Early Christians believed in some form of bodily assumption based on the Old Testament? However, it is the story of Elijah’s assumption that gives true gravitas to the biblical evidence for bodily assumption. In 2 Kings 2:1-12 we read of Elijah’s entry into heaven, in particular we read in verses 11 that:
“As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.”
Here is biblical evidence, bar none, of evidence for bodily assumption in the Bible, in other words, the Bible allows for assumption and does not reject it. At this point, doesn’t it make practical sense for Mary’s Assumption? Think about it: Jesus, with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, allowed for Enoch, Elijah and Moses to be assumed into heaven during the Old Testament times BUT, Jesus – in honoring His mother – let’s her body rot in the ground? The woman who bore Him, nursed Him, taught Him the Psalms and stood by Him as he was nailed to the cross, her body got eaten by worms a long time ago and her bones have become dust, right? The woman who Jesus had known since the creation of everything and already loved her, she gets to decay in the ground somewhere unknown. Does this make sense? Of course it doesn’t but, to a Bible-only Protestant, it has to make sense because when they get down to asking themselves the really hard theological questions about who Mary was and what relationship she had with Jesus, the Catholic teachings on her Immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, etc., slowly start to emerge and, heaven forbid, they realize the truth of Catholic dogma. This is why most Protestants HAVE TO keep any Marianological questions within the context of 66 books and negate historical councils and historical writings by those early Christians who weren’t (unlike us) 2000 years removed from the truth.
St. Melito of Sardis wrote in his work, The Book of the Passing of the Most Holy Virgin
in the late 4nd century the following:
“If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: "Be it done according to your will."
An interesting note about this little known Early Church Father is that he produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. 52 years after Nicaea, St. Epiphanius was the first Church Father to really get the ball rolling on the question of Mary’s death, and this doctrine was highly talked about during the Patristic Era, the Medieval Era – discussed by Ambrose, Augustine and Aquinas – all the way up until 1950 when Pope Pius XII made it a doctrine of the Church. Shortly stated, there is a pedigree of belief in Christian history for Mary being assumed into heaven even though, as I previously mentioned, the evidence for it prior to 325 A.D. is scant but as Catholics we realize and recognize in the organic growth of the Catholic Church from within, additionally, one has to wonder why Mr. Morrison and Mr. Wessels decided to use 325 A.D. as the cut off point in order to disprove Catholicism.
Indeed, why would these Protestants choose to loosely analyze 16.15% of Christian history and attempt to place all things Catholic within such a small percentage? The answer is a simple one: because in this fashion they can easily cast doubt on many things that the Church currently believes. The simple fact that it took a Church council to establish the immutable proof that God is Trinity, that Jesus and God the Father are “of the same substance” and, that Jesus has two natures, one divine and one humanly, clearly demonstrates that the Bible, which does not mention ANY of these things is not wholly sufficient for the true Christian.
@ 20:04 – “Mary as the Queen of Heaven. Now Jeremiah talks about the term “Queen of Heaven” as an idolatrous term for the pagan god Ashtar…” Much like the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, Mary as the Queen of Heaven is a huge probability in the Early Church since the first Christians, who were Jews, were fully and keenly aware of the Davidic Queen-Mothers and their roles throughout ancient Jewish History. I won’t get into a full on discussion about this since I’ve already explained this in full, click here to read why it is that we call Mary the “Queen of Heaven.”
@ 20:46 – “Mary’s intercession in our conversion. There is nothing prior to Nicaea had any concept or inkling about this.” Well, let’s see what the Early Church Fathers said about Mary’s intercession and then we’ll see if it’s at all possible for her to perhaps aid in our conversion to her Son.
In 180 A.D. St. Irenaeus, in the nineteenth chapter of the fifth volume of his Against Heresies, stated the following (with my emphasis):
“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.”
The oldest known prayer to the Virgin Mary comes from the Sub Tuum Praesidium
, a 3rd century Egyptian papyrus document:
We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.
Based on the two quotes above, as well as the fact that the Early Church Fathers venerated and asked for prayers from the Saints (see Part 1) and the fact that they held Mary in high esteem, is it really far fetched to believe that Mary – through her intercession - can’t aid us, in discovering her son? Isn’t that precisely why she was chosen, to demonstrate to the world the power of the Word made flesh? Wasn’t it Mary who said in Luke chapter 1:46, “My soul magnifies the Lord,” so how much more would she now magnify the Lord as she resides in His splendor and majesty? Wouldn’t she currently magnify her Son so much that she would, by her very own words, have to gravitate us towards Him? Furthermore, if Mary did have the power, if she could in some way get us closer to her Son, why wouldn’t she?
I will admit though that most of the evidence that leads to our dogmatic beliefs of Mary’s intercession did occur after 325 A.D. As stated above, solely containing everything that is Catholic to the first 325 years not only is intellectually dishonest but idiotic as well, that’s like me telling Mr. Morrison that he doesn’t know Christianity because when he was first started seminary, he didn’t know everything there was to know about Christianity right away. However, if I quiz him now, today, Mr. Morrison would easily recognize just how much more he knows now, then as a 1st year seminarian. So, with that being said, here’s a question for you Mr. Morrison: Did your Church have a prayer for Mary’s intercession in the mid 3rd century? Was your church even around back then, if so, what was its name?
@ 20:57 – “Mary is heaven’s gate. Well the Bible does teach of the Door to Heaven and the Door is Jesus.” We certainly believe that Christ is the only Way to the Father, and that people enter His Church, by Christ, the Door. We call Mary the "Gate of Heaven" because she is the gate through whom Jesus came into the world from heaven, and we can also go to Jesus by her. She is not "another way" to Heaven apart from Jesus, but the one who naturally draws us to Him so that He may then bring us to the Father. Additionally, this term – AND THAT’S ALL IT IS - wouldn’t be used by the Church until the early 1000’s. Mr. Morrison is simply attempting to demonstrate that somehow we as Catholics are trying to make Mary a doorway to heaven when Scripture states that the actual doorway is Christ. Again, Catholics NEVER place Mary on the same footing as her Son!
By Mr. Morrison’s rationale, we shouldn’t use the term “Second Eve” to describe Mary since this didn’t become an official term for Mary – AND THAT’S ALL IT IS, A TERM – in the Church until 1566 A.D., at the Council of Trent. St. Justin Martyr, however, clearly referred to Mary as the Second Eve in 155 A.D. in his Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 100, he states:
“…that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.”
St. Justin therefore in the year 155 A.D. is comparing Mary to Eve, in the same exact manner that St. Irenaeus in 180 A.D. does in his work Against Heresies. In Book 3, Chapter 22 section 24 he writes:
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin…having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race…And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled.”
Additionally, 115 years BEFORE Nicaea, in the year 210 A.D., Tertullian writes in his treatise, On The Flesh of Christ, Chapter 17 that:
“For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin's soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced.”
The term “Second Eve” is never used here but, as I’ve demonstrated, the Early Church, and Her Fathers, already recognized Mary as the antithesis of Eve in the same way that Jesus is the antithesis of Adam. But if we were to follow Mr. Morrison and Mr. Wessels methodology of reasoning, since the Early Church Fathers never used this term and they never knew of the term, well then hell, it never existed and therefore it’s a made up term by the Catholic Church! How foolhardy of these two Protestants, they’ve actually just allowed me to prove how important Sacred Tradition is to the Catholic Church; I just proved that the term, indeed the idea, of Mary as the “Second Eve” was floating around in the Church for over 1400 years before it was officially defined due to the heretical ideals of the Reformation.
As I mentioned before, if the Bible-only Protestant were to accept even this mere example of the unerring truth of the Catholic Church, then said Protestant would have a hard time not arriving at logical, basic and fundamental Catholic dogmas; in this example of Mary as the “Second Eve” we can rationally arrive to the doctrine of her perpetual virginity but, that’s another topic for another post.
A QUICK OBSERVATORY NOTE: As you may of already noticed, the topic of Mary is a heavily favored topic of the anti-Catholic. The reason is because many Catholics aren’t very well catechized in Marianology. Many Catholics don’t know the history of Mary even from within the pages of Scripture, indeed, Mary was part of Salvation History right from the beginning. When God declared in Genesis 3:15 that He would put enmity between the seed of Satan and the seed of the woman; many Christians see this verse, known as the proto-evangelion, as the first prophecy of the coming of Jesus. Thus “the woman” in Genesis who’s seed will by hated by Satan has to be Mary. We see Mary cooperating with the will of God in Luke 1:38 when she gives herself up to God’s Will and we see Mary at the end of Salvation History in the Book of Revelation as “the woman clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet with a crown of 12 stars.”
So, it is no surprise that these anti-Catholics will use the Blessed Virgin in a gambit move to trump the Catholic Church. This is therefore my clarion call to all of you Catholics: get busy in knowing what and why the Church teaches what She teaches about Mary!!! Know the history of how various Marian doctrines came from and why they are needed to better understand Christ!!! I guarantee you will learn so much more about Christ this way.
@ 21:05 – “…in these doctrines about Mary, these are Roman Catholic inventions created later in time to incorporate all of these man-made inventions…” Nope, sorry Mr. Wessels. As I proved at the 20:46 mark above, there is concise evidence for Marian devotion before 325 A.D. additionally, if we were to span the whole of Christian history to the advent of your current Protestant church, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the idea, indeed the notion, of Marian theology resonates for a much longer time length then your man-made church.
@ 21:20–21:49 – Mr. Wessels waxes lyrical about the Catholic Church being a lumbering ship covered with self-inflicted barnacles. Funny how a “lumbering ship” has managed to stay afloat for over 2,000 years, wouldn’t you agree? Isn’t it interesting how, throughout history, churches and religions come and go and yet, there She still stands. There still stands THE OLDEST INSTITUTION IN THE WESTERN WORLD, adding to her numbers consistantly over the last 4 decades, willing to fight abortion like no other Christian church on the planet, willing to donate more money than any other Christian church on the planet and, willing to continue the mission which was bestowed only to Her, that being, to proclaim the truth of Christ and bring souls to salvation. You can deny it all you want to Mr. Wessels but, 2000 years worth of history is empirical evidence enough for the Catholic Church. BTW, how old is your church? Can you name your church’s last 10 pastors? How about the last 100 pastors? How about the last 265 pastors? The only reason I ask is because every Catholic on the planet today can…can you?
@ 21:52 – “I was just debating someone on YouTube the other day…they were saying ‘early Church history proves the Roman Catholic Traditions and doctrines are true’…I just said, ‘look, show me where in Early Church history Vatican II is,…where’s the Council of Trent, where’s Vatican I…what we are finding here is that the Roman Catholic Church is just a series of barnacles which have been added over time and have nothing to do with early Church history or the Word of God…” So, where is are all these councils found in the Early Church Mr. Wessels asks? Let’s see, in Acts chapter 15 we see that there is an issue in the early church, that being, that there is a question as to whether or not newly Christian converts should be circumcised. Paul and Barnabas travel to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles, they begin discussing the matter, some already believed that circumcision was unnecessary others, said that they must observe the Mosaic law and, as such, have to be circumcised.
Why did they go to Jerusalem? What’s so special about going there? Well in Acts 2 we notice that the Apostles are there and it is Peter who is giving the sermon on Pentecost (verse 14) , the same Peter who in Acts 1:15 was the first one to stand up among Jesus’ disciples and declare that Judas’ office is vacant and needs to be filled; there’s no debate and no novelty, the other ten don’t say, “Huh, what are you talking about, Simon? This is weird." No, they understand, but even more, they submit. There's no debate, no discussion. Peter, the head Apostle, the leader, has spoken and when Peter declares an opinion it is binding and immediately. Interestingly, they choose the next disciple, Mattias, by casting lots; I wonder, Mr. Wessels, does your church choose it’s next leader by casting lots like Jesus’ disciples? Because this is exactly how the Catholic Church chooses it’s Pope, via the casting of lots by the College of Cardinals.
In Acts chapter 3, we see Peter's second sermon, we also see that Peter is the instrument by which the first real healing miracle occurs, when he heals the lame man at the Temple. In Chapter 4, Peter is put on trial by the Jewish Senate, the Sanhedrin, and as the story unfolds, Peter ends up putting the Sanhedrin on trial for crucifying the Lord! In Chapter 5 both Ananias and his wife Sapphira lie to Peter and both drop dead! In Chapter 8 we see Peter welcome in non-Jewish half-breeds, the Samaritans, into the Church. In Chapter 11 we see the first Gentile become a Christian, no scandal brakes out, nobody rebukes Peter for doing so, everything is fine, why? Because Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, has spoken.
By the time we roll around to chapter 15 and the whole circumcision question, it is clear to see that the real reason Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem is because this is where Peter, their leader, is. And it is here that we have the famous Council of Jerusalem. As verses 6-11 state:
“The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the Holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."
In other words, Peter just undid over 3000 years of established Jewish practice. Was there a riot? Did a fight break out? Did the Church splinter off because of this one man’s proclaimation? Did Peter’s words bring shame, humiliation and disgrace to the Church? Absolutely not, as verse 13 states:
“The whole assembly fell silent…”
Peter, the leader, the Head Apostles, the binder and loosener of all things on Earth, the holder of the Keys to the Kingdom, had spoken.
Why do I mention all of these things? Because it is imperative to realize that, 1) scripture allows for such Councils to be used by the Church when a question of the faith arises and, 2) it is the leader of the Church who not only presides but, by the authority of his office, declares what is binding and what is not. There you go Mr. Wessels, scriptural evidence for all of the 21 different ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church. But still, Mr. Wessels, I must ask: Why did Peter “invent” this new teaching without any Scriptural backing for his decision? According to you and to your cohort, Peter just changed the face of the Church by adding to it something that wasn’t originally there, right?
@ 23:53-26:08 - Mr. Morrison goes through a gambit of his false and erroneous take on Church devotions. All of what Mr. Morrison mentions here are Church customs and devotions, none of these things are meant to save you simply used to learn more about Christ. These things aren’t pertinent to your salvation but a means to understand better the mystery of our faith.
@ 26:21 – “When you come up with a doctrine of Purgatory which is not Biblical…” Wrong. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, ALL Christians believed in Purgatory, a simple view of hell, hades and sheol within the understanding of the ancient and 1st century Jews will readily identify that this was an accepted doctrine from the beginning. Additionally, the reason as to why Mr. Wessels states that the doctrine of Purgatory isn’t Biblical is because he, as all other Protestants, are reading an abridged version of the Bible concocted by a disgruntled monk in the 16th century. It was Martin Luther who threw out 7 books because they didn’t conform to his personal view of Jesus and, along with those 7 inspired books, he also threw out the teaching authority of the Magesterium and Sacred Apostolic Tradition. In essence, Martin Luther unilaterally did away with 2 of the 3 sources of authority and declared that his personal version of the Bible was the correct one.
So, you see Mr. Wessels, the reason why YOU can’t find Purgatory in YOUR bible is because you – and every other Protestant denomination - simply own a fallible collection of infallible books. This is why Protestant denomination, to one extent or another, all disagree; because once you do away with a bone fide teaching authority then any and everybody becomes a teaching authority and any and everybody is inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach Scripture, their own personal interpretation that is. Protestants also do away with history, in doing away with Sacred Tradition (2 Thess 2:15) , Martin Luther usurped one of the greatest gifts in all of Christianity, i.e., our place in true and established history. Even to this day, I’m fairly certain that most Protestant either don’t know or won’t admit that it was the Early Catholic Church that canonized 73 books as Scripture in the late 4th century.
No comments:
Post a Comment