Throwing down the gauntlet, part 1

I just so happen to stumble upon this anti-Catholic gem on YouTube. At first, I was curious to see how these Protestants would use Christian history to tear apart the Catholic Church and what I soon noticed was that these Bible alone Protestants were taking history out of context as well as taking it from it's actual and historical perspective in addition to obscenely omitting contradictory statements, that not only disprove thier illegitimate take on history but, many times, justifies the Catholic position. These yieldings half-truths definitely makes for an interesting eccumenical opportunity for me.

Due to the lengthiness of this video, I'm going to break this post down into two consecutive parts. In order to better understand my rebuttal, I state the minute mark on the video and give a direct quote  (in bold italics) or brief synopsis (in bold). So, sit back and grab some chips and a soda; this is going to be one heck of a throw down.

@ 1:24 – “You are one of the few individuals in the Christian Church today, in the 21^st century, that has actually read the Ante-Nicaean Fathers and the Early Church Fathers writings…I want to thank you again for doing that since there are so few that have actually done that.” Whoa! This guy is one of only a few people on the planet that has actually read the writings of the Early Church Fathers? Really? Well, truth be told, I’m no seminarian nor a theologian nor a Director of Christian Research for a Christian organization but, what I can tell you is this: I’ve personally have read most of the works of the Ante-Nicean Fathers - as a Catholic it is part of my heritage to know these works, indeed, every Christian ought to know these works, it’s part of our history! These works aren’t locked away and hidden in some Vatican vault, the works of all of the Church Fathers are available at bookstores, libraries and online; these aren’t some esoteric works that will confuse the average Christian, quite the contrary: these works help to illuminate and elucidate some of the most critical, fundamental and profound doctrines in all of Christianity.

I simply find it amazing that Protestants tend to simply skip the first 1,500 years of Christianity and use the Reformation as a starting point for all things Christian. This is not only intellectually dishonest but an attempt to circumvent the history, credence, majesty and glory of the Catholic Church. Personally, I think that some Protestants are prevented and even discouraged from reading these writings – heaven forbid they realize that the Early Church was so Catholic, right?

@ 5:43-7:20 – Director of Research, Steve Morrison, goes through a list of Old Testament writings that some of the Ante-Nicaean Fathers quote in their writings. Is this supposed to somehow make the Early Fathers “bible-only Christians” because they quoted from the Old Testament? How absurd. The simple fact that they quote from Hebrew Scripture is totally redundant because the vast majority of the Early Church Fathers were all Jews, therefore, it would’ve been completely alien for any Jew NOT to know of the Old Testament! Additionally, since the Bible – as we know it today – wasn’t canonized until about the year 400, these Early Fathers HAD TO use the only available bona fide scriptures that were available to them and use these known scripture passages as proof of Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Covenant.

One has to wonder though, why didn’t Mr. Morrison quote the Early Church Fathers who used passages from the Deuterocanonicals (apocrypha) – you know, those 7 books that Protestants are missing from their version of their bible? No mention of how St. Barnabas quotes the second chapter of the Book of Wisdom in his epistle in 74 A.D.? Why no mention of St. Clement of Rome when he quotes the twelfth book of Wisdom in his Epistle to the Corinthians around 80 A.D.? How about Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philadelphians written about 134 A.D. which directly quotes the Book of Tobit? Or, how about St. Irenaeus who quotes from the 13^th chapter of the Book of Daniel (Protestant bibles don’t have a 13^th chapter!) in his Against Heresies Volume 4, written in 189 A.D.? How about St. Hippolytus’ Commentary on Daniel, penned around 204 A.D., which also mentions the 13^th Chapter of Daniel? How about St. Cyprian of Carthage usage of quotations from the Book of Wisdom and Maccabees in the seventh volume of his Treatises written in 248 A.D. or, his usage of Chapter 14 of the Book of Daniel in his Letters circa 253 A.D.?

How ironic that the average Protestant will readily and proudly proclaim that the Deuterocanonical books aren’t inspired because a disgruntled monk unilaterally threw them out of established Scripture in the mid 1500’s and yet the same average Protestant will come away with a sense of inspiration after reading books from Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, Max Lucado or the heretical “Left Behind” books.

@ 7:20 – Steve Morrison demonstrates that St. Barnabas, in his epistle, quotes from the Old Testament. Once again, these Early Christians were Hebrews so they had full knowledge of the Old Testament. This in no way makes them sola scriptura believers! The most telling thing about this is the fact that Barnabas WAS A LEVITE! That’s right, St. Barnabas came from the tribe that God decreed His priests should come from in accordance with the Old Covenant. So, is it really so unusual that St. Barnabas quoted from Hebrew Scriptures?

@ 7:43 – Steve Morrison demonstrates that St. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, quotes the Old Testament. Mr. Morrison chose to quote from the 107^th Chapter of Dialogue with Trypho and yet, he failed to mention other more interesting chapters; like Chapter 41 in which St. Justin Martyr clearly demonstrates the belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Uh oh, that sounds remotely Catholic to me! Or how about Chapter 117 which states:

“Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him.”

Uh oh! Offering sacrifices through bread and a cup? WTF is all that about? Sounds distinctly Catholic to me!

St. Justin Martyr wrote Dialogue with Trypho AFTER he wrote his First Apology (written in the mid 2^nd century), which quite frankly, no Protestant will ever mention! In his First Apology, Martyr writes in Chapter 66:

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

I think Mr. Morrison should ask himself this question: If he is to take the word of this Early Church Father as proof of the authority of scripture, then why not take the word of the same Early Church Father as proof of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Because clearly, St. Justin Martyr believed in both.

@ 10:18-12:10 - Mr. Morrison goes on to demonstrate that several Early Church Fathers mention in some form or another, parts of the New Testament. An interesting thing of note is that Mr. Morrison never tells us which Fathers commented on what and whether or not they DIRECTLY QUOTE a New Testament work. You see, what Mr. Morrison is attempting to do is to, once again, is to demonstrate that the Early Church Fathers not only held the scriptures in high regard but as the only source of authority. This of course runs counter to history. You see the canonization of what books belong the bible occurred (at least) 60 years after the Council of Nicaea. So in essence, from the first book of the New Testament being written around 50 A.D. to the last book being written around 100 A.D., to the first council in Nicaea in 325 A.D., to the very first list of books by Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. there were A LOT OF CHRISTIAN WRITINGS WHERE FLOATING AROUND, that is, a lot of different works were being quoted by a lot of Early Church Fathers.

The Early Catholic Church used the writtings of the Early Church Fathers as a road map when it complied the Bible in 382, it used the inspired writings of its priests as a guide to which works it percieved where indeed inspired by God and which ones where not. In other words, the Bible came from Sacred Tradition, by the written and spoken words of the decendants of the Apostles. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the books that the Early Catholic Church chose and declared to be inspired, would be quoted by the Early Church Fathers over and over again because it was these exact quotets that lead the Catholic Church of the late 4th century to put together 73 books and, with all of Her authority, proclaim them the infallible Word of God. Think about that, the Early Church Fathers already had heard the Gospel proclaimed without there ever having been any form of concise and standard form of Scripture; proof positive that the tradition of verbally transmitting the inspired Word of God actually happened (see 2 Thess 2:15). If anything, Mr. Morrison here is proving the Catholic stance on Sacred Tradition.

@ 12:10 – Mr. Morrison says that the Early Church Fathers did not venerate the dead nor did they believe in icons or images. Patently and completely false! Let’s see what an Early Church Father said. In chapter 18 of the Martyrdom of Polycarp which was written in 155 A.D.:

“Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.”

Venerating the relics of a Saint and celebrating what amounts to an annual feast day for that dead Saint? Mr. Morrison, do you do this in your church? The only reason I ask is because Catholics do venerate relics as well as celebrate feast days of Saints...just like the first Christians did.

Tertullian writing in 211 A.D., in the 3^rd Chapter of The Crown, said:

“As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors.”

Offerings for the dead? Mr. Morrison, do you make offerings for the dead at your church like the very first Christians did? Catholics still to this day do, why don’t you?

St. Cyprian writing in 250 A.D., in his Epistle to the Clergy and the People, said:

“Nor is that kind of title to glories in the case of Celerinus, our beloved, an unfamiliar and novel thing. He is advancing in the footsteps of his kindred; he rivals his parents and relations in equal honours of divine condescension. His grandmother, Celerina, was some time since crowned with martyrdom. Moreover, his paternal and maternal uncles, Laurentius and Egnatius, who themselves also were once warring in the camps of the world, but were true and spiritual soldiers of God, casting down the devil by the confession of Christ, merited palms and crowns from the Lord by their illustrious passion. We always offer sacrifices for them, as you remember, as often as we celebrate the passions and days of the martyrs in the annual commemoration.”

Offering sacrifices for the dead? Mr. Morrison, do you offer any type of sacrifice for the dead at your church like the very first Christians did? Catholics offer the perpetual sacrifice of the Mass for our departed brothers and sisters in Christ, I'll ask again, why don’t you?

St. John Chrysostom, writing in the late fourth century said:

“When you are before the altar where Christ reposes, you ought no longer to think that you are amongst men; but believe that there are troops of angels and archangels standing by you, and trembling with respect before the sovereign Master of Heaven and earth. Therefore, when you are in church, be there in silence, fear, and veneration.”

Veneration? At an altar? WTF? Sounds distinctly Catholic if you ask me. To my Protestant friends, do you guys repose and venerate at your altar? Does your church even have an altar, if so, what sacrifice do you make, represent or re-present on it?

St. Jerome, a.k.a. the guy who translated the Bible to Latin (the Vulgate), from which every copy of the Bible is derived from, wrote a letter in 404 to a man named Riparius who was writing to Jerome because another man named Vigilantius was causing a lot of trouble for the Christians who were venerating the relics of the martyrs. So, did St. Jerome condemn Riparius for his iconoclastic belief? This is what St. Jerome wrote:

“You tell me that Vigilantius (whose very name "Wakeful" is a contradiction: he ought rather to be described as "Sleepy") has again opened his fetid lips and is pouring forth a torrent of filthy venom upon the relics of the holy martyrs; and that he calls us who cherish them ashmongers and idolaters who pay homage to dead men’s bones. Unhappy wretch!...Still we honour the relics of the martyrs, that we may adore Him whose martyrs they are. We honour the servants that their honour may be reflected upon their Lord…I ask Vigilantius, "Are the relics of Peter and of Paul unclean? Was the body of Moses unclean, of which we are told (according to the correct Hebrew text, [Deut. xxxiv. 6]) that it was buried by the Lord Himself?

He concludes by saying,

“I will go farther still and ask a question which will make this theory recoil upon the head of its inventor and which will either kill or cure that frenzied brain of his, so that simple souls shall be no more subverted by his sacrilegious reasonings. Let him answer me this: Was the Lord’s body unclean when it was placed in the sepulchre? And did the angels clothed in white raiment merely watch over a corpse dead and defiled, that ages afterwards this sleepy fellow might indulge in dreams and vomit forth his filthy surfeit, so as, like the persecutor Julian, either to destroy the basilicas of the saints or to convert them into heathen temples?”

Or, how about St. Gregory of Nyssa in his 4th century Sermon on the Blessed Theodore the Martyr when he said:

“...drawing near to (the martyr's) tomb which we believe to be both a sanctification and blessing. If anyone takes dust from the martyr's resting place, it is a gift and a deserving treasure. Should a person have both the good fortune and permission to touch the relics, this experience is a highly valued prize and seems like a dream both to those who were cured and whose wish was fulfilled....one implores the martyr who intercedes on our behalf and is an attendant of God for imparting those favors and blessings which people seek.”

Mr. Morrison also says that the excommunication and eventual sainthood of Christian martyrs where also not held in high regard by the Early Church Fathers, this simply isn’t true. He uses the example of St. Joan of Arc who was excommunicated and subsequently canonized. Anyone who’s remotely familiar with the story of St. Joan of Arc knows that the inquisitional court that undertook her case of heresy was controlled by the English government who also occupied Northern France at the time. This court naturally found this French Catholic warrior-patriot guilty and she was burned at the stake in 1439. After the French regained their occupied lands in 1449, investigations were held and it was rightly determined that she was innocent and, since she died protecting her Catholic faith, she died a martyr and eventually she was canonized. It should be noted that she WAS NOT excommunicated by a Pope, she was excommunicated by a local English sympathizing bishop.

It should also be noted that other Saints were also wrongfully excommunicated by hateful and vengeful men and later canonized, like St. Athanasius, St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross.

Lastly, Mr. Morrison says that none of the Church Fathers believed that the Church could bestow sainthood upon anyone. Once again, this statement is false. Let’s focus on what the Early Church Fathers said. It was St. Cyprian writing in the mid 200’s who stated the phrase, “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” that is, “Outside the Church, there is no salvation.” A very bold statement that NO Protestant will ever admit to but, what did the so-called “bible-only” Church Fathers (that Mr. Morrison would have us believe) think about this bold statement?

A good look trough the writings of Bishop Firmilean, Bishop Niceta, Lactantius, Origen, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint Fulgentius, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Jerome, Saint Peter Canisius, Saint Robert Bellarmine and Saint Thomas Aquinas ALL believed in this doctrine of the Church. Why is this important? Simply put, the Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ, since salvation comes only through Christ, it is imperative that all Christians be part of the Body of the One True Church. The Early Church Fathers knew therefore that the Saints came ONLY from the Catholic Church, furthermore they lived in a time when there was ONLY ONE Christian Church and that Church was indeed One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, same as it is today. Lastly, the Catholic Church doesn’t “make a Saint” she simply states what God has already done in heaven.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church #828 states (my emphasis added):

“By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly pro claiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors "The saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church's history." Indeed, "holiness is the hidden source and infallible measure of her apostolic activity and missionary zeal."

@ 13:55 – “Can an excommunicated heretic become a saint after death? This is a key thing to ask Catholics. Joan of Arc, she was burned to death as a heretic, she was tried by an official church council, she appealed to the Pope, the Pope did nothing and then -  50 years after she was killed by the Church as a heretic -  she became a saint. So if the Catholic Church was right in excommunicating people, did that mean that the excommunicated person is outside the Church and is going to Hell and 50 years later she goes to heaven?”  Yet another twisting of facts by Mr. Morrison. To begin with, as I stated before, Joan of Arc WAS wrongfully sentenced to death by pro-English clerics who, instead of opening their hearts to the truth, were more than likely subdued by political influence within the cloisters of the Church in England; after all, this was the medieval Catholic Church and to be a bishop was one of the great influential positions of the time. One of the most interesting medieval Church facts that I’ve come across is that NONE of the medieval Popes have ever been canonized. If in fact you ever needed proof that the Church is preserved by the Holy Spirit, then take note of how she was protected from the medieval scoundrels that sought worldly power instead of proclaiming Christ’s heavenly majesty.

Since we are speaking about the Church Fathers, let’s see what one of the brightest Catholic minds of the medieval age had to say about wrongful excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas in his famous Scriptum super Sententiis written in the early 1250's A.D. (200 years before Joan of Arc’s era) said that that is it better to die [wrongfully] excommunicated than to violate God's law and, in Book I, Distincition 44: question #2 he states that “Christians are bound to obey the authorities inasmuch as they are from God; and they are not bound to obey inasmuch as the authority is not from God.” In Summa Theologica, again written before Joan of Arc’s time, Aquinas’ 21^nd question, article 4 deals in particular with excommunication. It states:

“An excommunication may be unjust for two reasons. First, on the part of its author, as when anyone excommunicates through hatred or anger…Secondly, on the part of the excommunication, through there being no proper cause, or through the sentence being passed without the forms of law being observed. In this case, if the error, on the part of the sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect, for there is no excommunication…”

During Joan of Arc’s trial, numerous mistakes were made, heck at the end they even had to revise the list of offenses she apparently committed because they couldn’t get it right! St. Hildegard in her work, Scito Vias Domini, penned around the same time as Aquinas’ Scriptum super Sententiis, also notes that the binding of an unjust excommunication, cannot stand. She echoes Aquinas in stating that in the case of a wrongful excommunication, it is the clergy responsible for the excommunication that will incur God's wrath, not the excommunicated. God is the ultimate judge, according to these prominent medieval theologians; the clergy were considered to be free from misguided judgement ONLY IF they were truly acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit unfortunately they were not and therein lies the real fallacy of Mr. Morrison’s argument; that he somehow believes that an ecclesiastical body is infallible and, as any good Catholic will tell you, no ecclesiastical body is infallible save the Pope when proclaiming ex cathedra.

Mr. Morrison also stated that Joan of Arc “appealed to the Pope,” pray tell then, where is said correspondence? The simple fact is that all of the correspondence from Joan of Arc were preserved in order to use it against her when she was imprisoned, if in fact she communicated via letter to the Pope, wouldn’t the English tribunal have used this non-response from the Pope himself as further proof that she was a heretic? Think about that, what more proof would the tribunal have to have then that of the Pope himself refusing to answer a heretic! Wouldn’t this undoubtedly prove that the Pope was on the tribunal’s side since he never wrote back to defend this heretic? Alas, there was no such proof used to wrongfully condemn Joan of Arc; she died a martyr and as such, is a Saint.

@ 14:57 – 16:00 “…on this particular doctrine, you don’t find it in the Early Church writings. Before 325 A.D….before that date, and what we are seeing here in the Early Church writings is nothing about this stuff...that just shows right there a rock solid example of how false this doctrine’s tradition is…it doesn’t jive with the Word of God…it was a fabrication that was created later.”  Let’s see what the Early Church thought about excommunication. Early ecclesiastical writer, Tertullian explains of the heretic Marcion’s excommunication in 144 A.D. by the bishops of Asia Minor, so bad where his heresies that St. Polycarp called Marcion “the firstborn of Satan.”  Think about that for a second: if St. Polycarp, an Early Church Father and disciple of the Apostle John, called Marcion by this moniker, did St. Polycarp think that Marcion should still be part of the Early Church’s priesthood? Of course not! He’s not of the Spirit thus he is an adversary, an anti-christ (2 Jn. 1:7). Why wouldn’t he therefore be excommunicated out of THE ONLY Christian Church of the time? To suggest that just because the Early Church Fathers don’t mention excommunication explicitly in their writings and somehow this means that they didn’t practice it is absolute cynicism on Mr. Wessels part! St. Irenaeus in his Book III of Against Heresies (written 180 A.D.), states:

“Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren.”

Historian Eusibius, writing in the late 290's, records in his Church History, Book 5 Chapter 28 paragraph 6, the following concerning Pope St. Victor I (189-199 A.D):

"And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresey?"

Clearly seen is the leader of the Catholic Church "cutting off from communion" a heretic as early as the late second century A.D.; I don't know about you but, getting "cut off from communion" sounds like excommunication to me.

In 341 A.D. – just 16 years after Nicea, at the Synod of Antioch in Encaeniis, the Church Fathers declared that:

“Whosoever, shall presume to set aside the decree of the holy and great Synod which was assembled at Nice in the presence of the pious Emperor Constantine, beloved of God, concerning the holy and salutary feast of Easter; if they shall obstinately persist in opposing what was [then] rightly ordained, let them be excommunicated and cast out of the Church…”

Notice the attitude of these Early Church Fathers, it’s almost a given that if someone, especially an ordained priest, falls into heresy it only natural that they be excommunicated out of the Church, that is, out of the Body of Christ!

Let’s see what, if anything, the Word of God says about separating people from the church, Matthew 18:17 Jesus says:

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”

So you see, there is a basis for excommunication as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. The issue here is that as Protestants, Mr. Morrison and Mr. Wessels are attempting to undo the fidelity of the One True Church and its authority from Christ Himself. This is a tactic used over and over again in order to strip Mother Church down to merely just “another church.”

Additionally, Mr. Morrison states that it is the Saints who give us, their grace, wrong. It is God who generously bestows it upon us.

THIS ENDS PART 1